# Cindy Sheehan is a toolbag. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 1, 2006, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-is-a-toolbag/342454 "2006-02-01T02:24:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-is-a-toolbag/342454/41 "2006-02-01T04:06:06Z")
As much as I agree with her that this war is wrong, I think she’s only going to hurt her own cause, and I think she herself needs to seek professional help. This is not a slam-I think she’s somehow trying to avoid dealing with her son’s death. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-is-a-toolbag/342454/42 "2006-02-01T04:09:22Z")
> [@flickster](#): > > I’m sure it falls under the House rules for not allowing any type of protest from the gallery. Wouldn’t be surprised, but . . . cite? ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-is-a-toolbag/342454/43 "2006-02-01T04:14:10Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Why can’t she use her status to oppose the war while Bush uses others’ sacrifices to promote it? > > [From the State of the Union address:](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11115162/page/2/) > > It seems to me that Sheehan is being criticized for doing nearly the same thing as Bush. Simple reason, it’s the house of representatives chamber during the State of the Union. The President has a position which affords him the right to speak there in the manner he sees fit, that isn’t something that is afforded to anyone else in the room (like the military leaders or the SCOTUS) during that time. Legally the House could allow its members latitude to do things like this, but years of tradition, house rules, and political decorum prevent that. A private citizen can’t protest there because 1) you aren’t legally allowed to engage in political protest in the House as a private citizen and 2) she doesn’t have the floor and isn’t allowed to interfere with the speech. She can oppose the war, and quite publicly. She just has no legal right or authority to do so in that place at that time. The House, believe it or not, is not a forum for the public, it’s a forum for the politicians who we elect. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-is-a-toolbag/342454/44 "2006-02-01T04:16:31Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Wouldn’t be surprised, but . . . cite? As several news articles, one already cited in this thread have said, protesting inside the capitol is a misdemeanor. Whether or not it’s an issue of House rules is irrelevant since it does appear it is actually prohibited by legislation. ---
**Author:** ![glilly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/48db29/32.png) [@glilly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glilly)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-is-a-toolbag/342454/45 "2006-02-01T04:16:58Z")
> [@5 time champ](#): > > Maybe she just should have taken her t-shirt off, that would have made everybody happy. Egads! We CAN’T be thinking of the same Sheehan. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-is-a-toolbag/342454/46 "2006-02-01T04:20:28Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > [CNN.com - Activist Sheehan arrested in House gallery - Feb 1, 2006](http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/31/sheehan.arrest/index.html) > > Does anybody here think a person should be charged for wearing t-shirt with an anti-war slogan? That seems pretty excessive to me, not to mention against the spirit of freedom of speech, if not actually unconstitutional. Freedom of speech isn’t unlimited. You can protest the Iraq war for example, but you can’t set up a protest booth in front of a hospital that completely blocks the entrance. Likewise there are government places where you cannot protest if your protest is seen to be interfering with some government function, for example during a speech where the President is reporting on the state of the union to congress. Theoretically congress is there to hear the President’s report on the status of the union and just because you dislike the President you don’t have the right to interfere with the discussion by being disruptive. ---
**Author:** ![robby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robby/32/11048_2.png) [@robby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robby)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-is-a-toolbag/342454/47 "2006-02-01T04:25:00Z")
> [@flickster](#): > > …It’s not a freedom of speech issue, it’s a following the rules issue. As someone who believes in freedom and our Constitution, I find it hard to express how much a comment like this upsets me. So long as she was not actively being disruptive, they should have left her alone. ---
**Author:** ![flickster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7bcc69/32.png) [@flickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flickster)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-is-a-toolbag/342454/48 "2006-02-01T04:25:22Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Wouldn’t be surprised, but . . . cite? Took a bit of searching, [but this probably fits](http://www.cga.ct.gov/2001/pub/Chap016.htm#sec2-1d.htm) > [@](#): > > Sec. 2-1d. Interference with the General Assembly; misdemeanor. (a) A person is guilty of interfering with the legislative process when he: > (1) Alone or in concert with others, either by force, physical interference, fraud, intimidation or by means of any unlawful act, with intent to do so, prevents or attempts to prevent the General Assembly, either house thereof, or any committee of the General Assembly or either house thereof, from meeting; > (2) Alone or in concert with others, with intent to do so, disturbs, disrupts or interferes with, or attempts to disturb, disrupt or interfere with, any session, meeting or proceeding of the General Assembly or either house thereof or any committee of the General Assembly or either house thereof, whether within or outside the presence of said General Assembly, either house thereof or any such committee by (A) engaging in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior; or (B) using abusive or obscene language or making an obscene gesture; or (C) making unreasonable noise; or (D) refusing to comply with a lawful order of the police or a member of the Office of State Capitol Police to disperse; or (E) performing any other act which disturbs, disrupts or interferes with any such session, meeting or proceeding; ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-is-a-toolbag/342454/49 "2006-02-01T04:30:04Z")
> [@robby](#): > > As someone who believes in freedom and our Constitution, I find it hard to express how much a comment like this upsets me. > > So long as she was not actively being disruptive, they should have left her alone. All she had to do was put the shirt back on that she was wearing over that t-shirt, and she could have stayed. The Capitol Police, as is their legal and rightful discretion, saw the displaying of the shirt to be in violation of statutes that prohibit disturbing the legislative process and acted accordingly when she refused to comply with their lawful request. ---
**Author:** ![robby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robby/32/11048_2.png) [@robby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robby)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-is-a-toolbag/342454/50 "2006-02-01T04:32:32Z")
> [@flickster](#): > > Took a bit of searching, [but this probably fits](http://www.cga.ct.gov/2001/pub/Chap016.htm#sec2-1d.htm) So by merely sitting there with a slogan on her T-shirt, how exactly does this statute apply? I fail to see how such action “disturbs, disrupts or interferes with, or attempts to disturb, disrupt or interfere with, any session, meeting or proceeding…” ---
**Author:** ![flickster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7bcc69/32.png) [@flickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flickster)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-is-a-toolbag/342454/51 "2006-02-01T04:33:10Z")
> [@flickster](#): > > Took a bit of searching, [but this probably fits](http://www.cga.ct.gov/2001/pub/Chap016.htm#sec2-1d.htm) Additional parts of the code that could apply as well: > [@](#): > > (5) Alone or in concert with others, and without legal authority or proper authorization, refuses to leave any part of the chamber, galleries or offices of the General Assembly or either house thereof, or the building in which such chamber, galleries or any such office is located, or within or upon any office or residence of any member of the General Assembly, or within or upon any room or building in which a legislative hearing or meeting is being conducted, upon a lawful order of the police or a member of the Office of State Capitol Police to disperse, leave or move to an area he designates; > (6) Alone or in concert with others, pickets inside any building in which the chamber, galleries or offices of the General Assembly or either house thereof is located, or in which the office or residence of any member of the General Assembly is located, or in which a legislative hearing or meeting is being conducted. > (b) Interference with the legislative process under the provisions of this section is a class A misdemeanor. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-is-a-toolbag/342454/52 "2006-02-01T06:04:05Z")
It’s interesting how the OP has remained absent since it has been pointed out that Sheehan “unfurled an anti-war banner” only if by \*unfurled \*he meant _wore_, and by _anti-war banner_ he meant _Tshirt she was wearing all day_. Pretty transparent attempt to stretch the truth to fit the Pit. Pretty embarrassing dude. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-is-a-toolbag/342454/53 "2006-02-01T06:08:13Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > It’s interesting how the OP has remained absent since it has been pointed out that Sheehan “unfurled an anti-war banner” only if by \*unfurled \*he meant _wore_, and by _anti-war banner_ he meant _Tshirt she was wearing all day_. > > Pretty transparent attempt to stretch the truth to fit the Pit. Pretty embarrassing dude. To be fair, that’s how it was being reported. That was my initial impression from watching the news. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Ashtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@Lord\_Ashtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Ashtar)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-is-a-toolbag/342454/54 "2006-02-01T06:18:54Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > It’s interesting how the OP has remained absent since it has been pointed out that Sheehan “unfurled an anti-war banner” only if by \*unfurled \*he meant _wore_, and by _anti-war banner_ he meant _Tshirt she was wearing all day_. > > Pretty transparent attempt to stretch the truth to fit the Pit. Pretty embarrassing dude. You might find [this earlier post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7055630&postcount=39) to be of interest. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-is-a-toolbag/342454/55 "2006-02-01T06:21:44Z")
> [@Lord Ashtar](#): > > You might find [this earlier post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7055630&postcount=39) to be of interest. From that post: > [@](#): > > An early report from a senior House official indicated that Sheehan was arrested for unfurling an anti-war banner, but that was later found not to be the case. Why am i not surprised that the misinformation came from a White House source? ---
**Author:** ![BoBettie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4af34b/32.png) [@BoBettie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BoBettie)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-is-a-toolbag/342454/56 "2006-02-01T06:23:57Z")
I think she accomplished exactly what she wanted to. I didn’t watch the speech, but checking several news sites I saw a headline about her being arrested right alongside the headlines about the SOTU address. She got her name and cause out in the public eye again, which I’m sure was her intent. I seriously doubt she planned on sitting through his speech and clapping at his brilliance. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-is-a-toolbag/342454/57 "2006-02-01T06:28:47Z")
> [@Martin Hyde](#): > > All she had to do was put the shirt back on that she was wearing over that t-shirt, and she could have stayed. The Capitol Police, as is their legal and rightful discretion, saw the displaying of the shirt to be in violation of statutes that prohibit disturbing the legislative process and acted accordingly when she refused to comply with their lawful request. It’s pretty sad when the wearing of a t-shirt constitutes “disturbing the legislative process.” The test for this should be: Would those same guards have asked a person to cover up a t-shirt that said “George Bush” or “I support the liberation of Iraq”? If they can honestly answer yes to that question, i’d be willing to concede that they made fair use of their discretion; if not, then they didn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-is-a-toolbag/342454/58 "2006-02-01T06:29:27Z")
> [@flickster](#): > > Took a bit of searching, [but this probably fits](http://www.cga.ct.gov/2001/pub/Chap016.htm#sec2-1d.htm) Actually, that doesn’t fit at all, because that’s Connecticut State Law. ---
**Author:** ![flickster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7bcc69/32.png) [@flickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flickster)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 6:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-is-a-toolbag/342454/59 "2006-02-01T06:44:34Z")
> [@Captain Amazing](#): > > Actually, that doesn’t fit at all, because that’s Connecticut State Law. oops :smack: never noticed - did the search on .gov domain - However, I’d wager it’s patterned after the fed’s or visa versa. ---
**Author:** ![Leviosaurus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/439d5e/32.png) [@Leviosaurus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leviosaurus)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-is-a-toolbag/342454/60 "2006-02-01T07:03:01Z")
To the numerous responses to my last post - point taken, they indeed had grounds to remove her. So why stick her somewhere to question her for an hour? Why arrest her, detain her, or whatever they did? A typical bouncer at a bar kicks out unruly patrons all the time and doesn’t let them get back in. All they needed to do was escort her to the door and tell her to get lost. Obviously the process is not rocket science. Why the heavyhanded tactics? I don’t like what this says about the way our country works, and how we react to nonviolent protest. Consider the fact that she wasn’t trespassing, as she was invited. She wasn’t shouting or carrying on, she didn’t unfurl any banners - basically, she got either arrested or ‘detained’ and grilled for an hour for violating the dress code. FWIW, I agree with **Guinastasia** - I think Sheehan was probably hurting her cause more than helping. If they really wanted to discredit her, he should have left her there and hoped that she started shouting. But regardless of who she is or what she represents, the reaction sounds over the top. They gave more credit to her through these actions than they would have by ignoring her or simply dumping her back out on the street. My $.02. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-is-a-toolbag/342454.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-is-a-toolbag/342454.md?page=4)