Before anyone here decides to get into a debate with Mul, read the above. Then read it again.

Then, instead of trying to change Mul's mind about ANYTHING, move on to other, more productive things.

People that make their own little realities tend to get very comfortable there.

So, my liberal friends, does the following apply, or could it have been said to Cindy Sheehan in this case? Shamelessly lifted from Mul's thread on fighting his speeding ticket, as posted by our one and only cool chick:

"Upholding the law is "militant authoritarian" to you?

And no one here defends the liberties of dictators and killers, except you.

So you think you're above the law? You think you should be able to break the law?

Admit it, you broke the law, no one forced you to break the law, you got caught, assume personal responsiblitiy for a change."

- cool chick

I'm not a liberal, but I shall answer it. Yes, it does apply. She knew the rules. I'm not sure about arrest though, I can't imagine there's a specific law against it, but she knew the rules, she shouldn't have broken them. There's no "victim" here.

Jeff, excellent post! Well, except for one, um, small detail.

SHEEHAN DID NOT BREAK THE LAW

Prehaps you missed it. The Capitol Police released her, dropped the charges, and even went so far as to apologize to her.

First, my sole concern with a government is the US government. My sole demand is for it to obey the law. Since it is acting unlawfully, in so many ways yes, but especially so in Iraq; means that as a responsible citizen I must call the government to account as much as I am able.

I don't care, personally, what dictator's do as long as they don't do it here. The Hussein government tortured militant fundamentalist muslims, he shouldn't have done that, only the people of Iraq were the ones to deal with it.

Now, we have a sitting US president that says he can spy on any American citizen he chooses to spy on without a warrant because his role as commander-in-chief gives him plenary powers not restricted by the Bill of Rights.

He is wrong. His powers are merely to order the military where Congress tells him to order them, not where he thinks he should start a war, and not any military operation within US borders or territories. Such operations are expressly forbidden by the Constitution. The Constitution is an envelope within which the federal government must remain. If a power isn't listed in the Constitution, then that power has not been granted to the federal government.

The Bill of Rights applies to the whole of the Constitution, not just part of it. The Bill of Rights has a Preamble which lays out it's broad checks on government powers. Supremacy Clause, restricted by the Tenth Amendment; Privacy of a Womens person, protected by the 4th Amendment and Ninth Amendment; the right to own any arm, machine gun, grenade, handgun, canon, any thing at all is protected by the Second Amendment. Everyone should know that the federal government should be extremely limited in it's powers, and is limited in it's powers.

The US Constitution as Amended is the law, demand that the US government obey the law.

I'm paraphrasing to highlight the "situational ethics" displayed by many of you. It would be easy enough to substitute "rules" for "laws" in cc's post. I'm not that up on "laws" vs. "rules" concerning disruption at the SOTU anyway. Technically, Mul did not break the "law" either. He violated a code, or a statute, or whatever. Let's not pick the fly ***** out of the pepper; both did something wrong, regardless of semantics or legal definitions. That's my only point.

This is how I feel on the topic.....

There is a time and a place for everything.

If you wear a tshirt to your cousin's wedding, don't be "shocked" if you're asked to leave and change.

If you wear shorts to an opera, don't be shocked if you are asked to leave.

If you wear sweats to work when your dresscode is business casual, don't be shocked if you are asked to leave.

If you're swapping tongue and groping in a restaurant, don't be shocked if you're asked to leave.

The SOTU is not a place to be wearing tshirts. I would never dream of dressing that way at a SOTU. Tshirts are for the beach or rock concerts.

The analogy you provided is similar, but different. My comment had to do with breaking the law, and I don't think Cindy broke the law, hence an arrest is unwarranted. But the premise of personal responsibility is the same. If you know better, but you choose to do it anyway, don't be "shocked" when you're called on it.

You're going to the wrong restaurants...

Got a list for me? :D

What exactly did Sheehan do "wrong?"

You are trying to make a point, except the facts of your example don't make any point at all.

Sorry, that dog won't hunt. If you want "situational ethics" just look at all the Bush supporters that dislike Clinto because he lied about sex, yet give the administration pass after pass on lie after lie.

Clinton lied abut an embarrasing private matter, not that this in any way excuses him. The Bush/Cheney team lies as a matter of policy, practically every day.

I'll by-pass the "America does not torture" line of statements that were made at the identical time Bush was threatening to veto the McCain torture bill, and skip to a more recent issue. Where's the outrage?


President Bush -- April 19, 2004:

For years, law enforcement used so-called roving wire taps to investigate organized crime. You see, what that meant is if you got a wire tap by court order -- and, by the way, everything you hear about requires court order, requires there to be permission from a FISA court, for example.

President Bush -- April 20, 2004:

Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

President Bush -- June 9, 2005:

One tool that has been especially important to law enforcement is called a roving wiretap. Roving wiretaps allow investigators to follow suspects who frequently change their means of communications. These wiretaps must be approved by a judge, and they have been used for years to catch drug dealers and other criminals. Yet, before the Patriot Act, agents investigating terrorists had to get a separate authorization for each phone they wanted to tap. That means terrorists could elude law enforcement by simply purchasing a new cell phone. The Patriot Act fixed the problem by allowing terrorism investigators to use the same wiretaps that were already being using against drug kingpins and mob bosses.

You are kidding, aren't you? See cc's post above. She gets it.

Wow. I was only kidding about the fashion police. Apparently, you believe they should have arrest powers.

Sorry, a tee-shirt may be tacky, but not grounds for either removal or arrest from the capitol building.

Why did you ignore all the Bush lies on warrants? Don't you have a problem with our president lying to us over and over and over?

I hope those are not the kind of "situational ethics" you condone -- you know, the "conservative" kind.

...and what did the shirt say?......


Looks like you're riding alone, Rodeo.

Let's not mix and match separate issues here, Rodeo. Yours is typical of the diversions my two young boys had to offer when I caught one of them doing wrong. I got to hear all the dirt on the other brother, hoping it would soften the blow or justify the wrongdoing of the one I caught.

We are talking about Sheehan's wrongdoing. No matter what Bush may or may not have done, disrupting the SOTU address is childish and in poor taste. Probably illegal, and at least against the "rules". She has other, more appropriate venues available to voice her concerns.

That's a good point. The German Shepherd in the crowd behaved better than her!

Diversions??? What part of this do you not understand? SHEEHAN DID NOTHING WRONG:

Show some integrity and admit it:

“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.”

The extraordinary statement came a day after police removed Sheehan and Beverly Young, wife of Rep. C.W. “Bill” Young, R-Fla., from the visitors gallery Tuesday night. Sheehan was taken away in handcuffs before Bush’s arrival at the Capitol and charged with a misdemeanor, while Young left the gallery and therefore was not arrested, Gainer said.

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

Gainer added that he was asking the U.S. attorney’s office to drop the charge against Sheehan.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11120353/

The diversions are yours, Rodeo. I'm not sure you understand what I meant.

Me: What Sheehen did was wrong.

You: Oh yeah, what about the wrong that Bush has done?

Totally unrelated. We will address Bush separately, and have. Any perceived wrongdoing of his can and will be addressed, just not during the SOTU. After, during the rebuttals offered by Democratic spokespersons, is a good example of an appropriate venue to air any differences. Not by interupting the SOTU.

Sheehan was there to interupt and disturb the address. She was removed before she could.

Oh ... she commited a "pre-crime."

Now I get it. That's how YOU can conclude that Sheehan did something wrong when even those who arrested her say she did not.

I asked you to show some integrity. You showed us something quite different.

You're scary. And dishonest. Over and out.