Here's the "State of Our Union" Under The Bush Regime !

Police Remove Protester Cindy Sheehan From State of the Union Address for Wearing Anti-War T-Shirt

By LAURIE KELLMAN Associated Press Writer

The Associated Press
WASHINGTON Feb 1, 2006 — Cindy Sheehan, mother of a fallen soldier in Iraq, wasn't the only one ejected from the House gallery during the State of the Union address for wearing a T-shirt with a war-related slogan that violated the rules. The wife of a powerful Republican congressman was also asked to leave.
Beverly Young, wife of Rep. C.W. Bill Young of Florida chairman of the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee was removed from the gallery because she was wearing a T-shirt that read, "Support the Troops Defending Our Freedom."
She was sitting about six rows from first lady Laura Bush and asked to leave. She argued with police in the hallway outside the House chamber.
"They said I was protesting," she told the St. Petersburg Times. "I said, "Read my shirt, it is not a protest.' They said, 'We consider that a protest.' I said, 'Then you are an idiot.'"
They told her she was being treated the same as Sheehan, a protester ejected before the speech Tuesday night for wearing a T-shirt with an antiwar slogan. Sheehan wrote in her blog Wednesday that she intends to file a First Amendment lawsuit.
"I don't want to live in a country that prohibits any person, whether he/she has paid the ultimate price for that country, from wearing, saying, writing, or telephoning any negative statements about the government," Sheehan wrote.
Capitol Police took Sheehan, invited as a guest of Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., away in handcuffs and charged her with unlawful conduct, a misdemeanor. She later was released on her own recognizance.
Capitol Police Sgt. Kimberly Schneider said police warned her that such displays were not allowed in the House chamber, but Sheehan did not respond.
Woolsey gave Sheehan her only ticket earlier in the day Gallery 5, seat 7, row A while Sheehan was attending an "alternative state of the union" news conference by CODEPINK, a group pushing for an end to the Iraq war.
In her blog, Sheehan wrote that her T-shirt said, "2245 Dead. How many more?" a reference to the number of soldiers killed in Iraq.

source: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1565113
---------------
NBC: Charges against Sheehan to be dropped
Antiwar mom removed from State of the Union for wearing protest shirt

NBC News and news services
Updated: 5:42 p.m. ET Feb. 1, 2006

WASHINGTON - Charges against antiwar protester Cindy Sheehan, who was arrested after an incident involving a T-shirt she wore to the State of the Union address, will be dropped, officials told NBC News Wednesday.
U.S. Capitol Police took Sheehan away in handcuffs and charged her with unlawful conduct, a misdemeanor, when she showed up to President Bush’s address Tuesday night wearing a shirt that read, “2245 Dead. How many more?” — a reference to the number of soldiers killed in Iraq.
But Capitol Police will ask the U.S. attorney's office to drop the charges, NBC News’ Mike Viqueira reported Wednesday.
“We screwed up,” a top Capitol Police official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
He said Sheehan didn't violate any rules or laws.
Sheehan, whose son Casey died in Iraq, was not the only one ejected from the House gallery. The wife of a powerful Republican congressman was also asked to leave, but she was not arrested.
Beverly Young, wife of Rep. C.W. Bill Young of Florida — chairman of the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee — was removed from the gallery because she was wearing a T-shirt that read, “Support the Troops — Defending Our Freedom.”
The Capitol Police official said officers never should have approached Young.
Criticism from Rep. Young
Holding up the shirt his wife wore, Rep. Young said on the House floor Wednesday morning: “Because she had on a shirt that someone didn’t like that said support our troops, she was kicked out of this gallery.”
“Shame, shame,” he scolded.
Beverly Young was sitting about six rows from first lady Laura Bush and was asked to leave. She argued with police in the hallway outside the House chamber.
“They said I was protesting,” she told the St. Petersburg Times. “I said, ‘Read my shirt, it is not a protest.’ They said, ‘We consider that a protest.’ I said, ‘Then you are an idiot.”’
They told her she was being treated the same as Sheehan, who was ejected before the speech. Sheehan had wrote in her blog Wednesday that she intended to file a First Amendment lawsuit.
She did not issue an immediate response to the charges being dropped.
“I don’t want to live in a country that prohibits any person, whether he/she has paid the ultimate price for that country, from wearing, saying, writing, or telephoning any negative statements about the government,” Sheehan wrote in her blog.
Sheehan was invited as a guest of Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif. She later was released on her own recognizance.
Told she could not wear shirt?
Capitol Police Sgt. Kimberly Schneider said police warned Sheehan that such displays were not allowed in the House chamber, but Sheehan did not respond, she said.
Sheehan, however, told a different story in her blog.
“I was never told that I couldn’t wear that shirt into the Congress,” Sheehan wrote. “I was never asked to take it off or zip my jacket back up. If I had been asked to do any of those things, ... I would have, and written about the suppression of my freedom of speech later.”
She said she felt uncomfortable about attending the speech.
“I knew George Bush would say things that would hurt me and anger me and I knew that I couldn’t disrupt the address because Lynn had given me the ticket,” Sheehan wrote. “I didn’t want to be disruptive out of respect for her.”
She said she had one arm out of her coat when an officer yelled, “Protester.”
“He then ran over to me, hauled me out of my seat and roughly (with my hands behind my back) shoved me up the stairs,” she wrote in her blog. She was then cuffed and driven to police headquarters a few blocks away.
Sheehan was arrested in September with about 300 other anti-war activists in front of the White House after a weekend of protests against the war in Iraq. In August, she spent 26 days camped near Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas, where he was spending a working vacation.

The Associated Press and NBC News contributed to this report.
source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11120353/
----------
There seems to be a pattern ............

Published on Friday, October 15, 2004 by the KGW - NewsChannel 8 (Portland, Oregon)
Teachers' T-Shirts Bring Bush Speech Ouster
by kgw.com and AP Staff

CENTRAL POINT, Ore. -- Three Medford school teachers were threatened with arrest and thrown out of the President Bush rally at the Jackson County Fairgrounds Thursday night, after they showed up wearing T-shirts with the slogan "Protect our civil liberties."
Three Medford school teachers who were thrown out of a Bush rally because of their t-shirts.
Three Medford school teachers who were thrown out of a Bush rally because of their t-shirts.
All three women said they were carrying valid tickets for the event that they had received from Republican Party headquarters in Medford, which had been distributing event tickets to Bush supporters.
Teacher Janet Voorhies said she simply wanted to bring a message to President Bush, but did not intend to protest.
"I wanted to see if I would be able to make a statement that I feel is important, but not offensive, in a rally for my president," said Voorhies, 48.
The women said they were angered by reports of peaceful protesters being thrown out of previous Bush-Cheney events. They said they chose the phrase, "Protect Our Civil Liberties," because it was unconfrontational.
"We chose this phrase specifically because we didn't think it would be offensive or degrading or obscene," said Tania Tong, 34, a special education teacher.
The women got past the first and second checkpoints and were allowed into the Jackson County fairgrounds, but were asked to leave and then escorted out of the event by campaign officials who allegedly told them their T-shirts were "obscene."
Democrats were quick to pounce on the incident and claimed the GOP has routinely sought to disclude anyone from public appearances by President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney who might question the administration. There was no immediate comment from Republican officials.
"Thursday's actions in Oregon set a new standard even for Bush/Cheney - removing and threatening with arrest citizens who in no way disrupt an event and wear clothing that expresses non-disruptive party-neutral viewpoints such as "Protect Our Civil Liberties," said Adam Green, a spokesman for the Oregon Democratic Party.
When Cheney visited Eugene last month, the Register-Guard newspaper reported that Perry Patterson, 54, was cited for criminal trespassing for blurting out the word "No" after Cheney claimed that the Bush administration had made the world safer.
In a separate and unrelated case Thursday, two protesters were arrested in nearby Jacksonville, outside the historic inn where President Bush was spending the night.
A few hundred people were demonstrating peacefully there, but police moved to disperse the crowd after a few protesters allegedly put their hands on police officers. City officials said police fired projectiles known as "pepper balls" -- similar to paint balls, but filled with cayenne pepper to break up the demonstrators.

source: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1015-06.htm
---------------
Bush To Criminalize
Protesters Under Patriot Act

By Patriot Daily
News Clearinghouse
1-13-6

George Bush wants to create the new criminal of "disruptor" who can be jailed for the crime of "disruptive behavior." A "little-noticed provision" in the latest version of the Patriot Act will empower Secret Service to charge protesters with a new crime of "disrupting major events including political conventions and the Olympics."

The Secret Service would also be empowered to charge persons with "breaching security" and to charge for "entering a restricted area" which is "where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting." In short, be sure to stay in those wired, fenced containments or free speech zones.

Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse's diary:

Who is the "disruptor"? Bush Team history tells us the disruptor is an American citizen with the audacity to attend Bush events wearing a T-shirt that criticizes Bush; or a member of civil rights, environmental, anti-war or counter-recruiting groups who protest Bush policies; or a person who invades Bush's bubble by criticizing his policies. A disruptor is also a person who interferes in someone else's activity, such as interrupting Bush when he is speaking at a press conference or during an interview.

What are the parameters of the crime of "disruptive behavior"? The dictionary defines "disruptive" as "characterized by unrest or disorder or insubordination." The American Medical Association defines disruptive behavior as a "style of interaction" with people that interferes with patient care, and can include behavior such as "foul language; rude, loud or offensive comments; and intimidation of patients and family members."

What are the rules of engagement for "disruptors"? Some Bush Team history of their treatment of disruptors provide some clues on how this administration will treat disruptors in the future.

(1) People perceived as disruptors may be preemptively ejected from events before engaging in any disruptive conduct.

In the beginning of this war against disruptors, Americans were ejected from taxpayer funded events where Bush was speaking. At first the events were campaign rallies during the election, and then the disruptor ejectment policy was expanded to include Bush's post election campaign-style events on public policy issues on his agenda, such as informing the public on medicare reform and the like. If people drove to the event in a car with a bumper sticker that criticized Bush's policies or wore T-shirts with similar criticism, they were disruptors who could be ejected from the taxpayer event even before they engaged in any disruptive behavior. White House press secretary McClellan defended such ejectments as a proper preemptive strike against persons who may disrupt an event: "If we think people are coming to the event to disrupt it, obviously, they're going to be asked to leave."

(2) Bush Team may check its vast array of databanks to cull out those persons who it deems having "disruptor" potential and then blacklist those persons from events.

The White House even has a list of persons it deems could be "disruptive" to an eventand then blacklists those persons from attending taxpayer funded events where Bush speaks. Sounds like Bush not only has the power to unilaterally designate people as "enemy combatants" in the global "war on terror," but to unilaterally designate Americans as "disruptive" in the domestic war against free speech.

(3) The use of surveillance, monitoring and legal actions against disruptors.

Bush's war against disruptors was then elevated to surveillance, monitoring, and legal actions against disruptor organizations. The FBI conducts political surveillance and obtains intelligence filed in its database on Bush administration critics , such as civil rights groups (e.g., ACLU), antiwar protest groups (e.g., United for Peace and Justice) and environmental groups (e.g., Greenpeace).

This surveillance of American citizens exercising their constitutional rights has been done under the pretext of counterterrorism activities surrounding protests of the Iraq war and the Republican National Convention. The FBI maintains it does not have the intent to monitor political activities and that its surveillance and intelligence gathering is "intended to prevent disruptive and criminal activity at demonstrations, not to quell free speech."

Surveillance of potential disruptors then graduated to legal actions as a preemptive strike against potential disruptive behavior at public events. In addition to monitoring and surveillance of legal groups and legal activities, the FBI issued subpoenas for members to appear before grand juries based on the FBI's "intent" to prevent "disruptive convention protests." The Justice Dept. opened a criminal investigation and subpoenaed records of Internet messages posted by Bush`s critics. And, the Justice Dept. even indicted Greenpeace for a protest that was so lame the federal judge threw out the case.

So now the Patriot Act, which was argued before enactment as a measure to fight foreign terrorists, is being amended to make clear that it also applies to American citizens who have the audacity to disrupt President Bush wherever his bubble may travel. If this provision is enacted into law, then Bush will have a law upon which to expand the type of people who constitute disruptors and the type of activities that constitute disruptive activities. And, then throw them all in jail.

Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse
source: http://www.rense.com/general69/dissent.htm
----------------
Strange Bedfellows- What the ACLU and the NRA have in common

By Matt Larson | 8.4.03

America’s love affair with the homeland security state is getting a little rocky. Republican Rep. C.L. “Butch” Otter of Idaho proposed an amendment to this year’s Commerce, Justice, and State funding bill that would order law enforcement agencies to stop using delayed-notification search warrants, one of the dubious measures enshrined in the Patriot Act of 2001. The amendment passed the House on July 22 by a vote of 309-118, with 113 Republicans voting in favor. A similar measure has yet to face a Senate vote, and it’s anybody’s guess whether the change would survive a presidential veto, but the Otter Amendment signals a clear direction in the nation’s mood.
The amendment seems to follow the lead of a growing grassroots movement on both the left and right opposing the Patriot Act and the so-called Patriot Act II. (The latter has not been introduced in Congress yet, but a Justice Department document outlining provisions for a new bill was leaked on February 7, causing much alarm among defenders of civil liberties.)
Backlash against the Patriot legislation has created a fantasyland of political concord: Gun Owners of America nodding in agreement with the American Library Association and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), with the Green Party happily concurring. Organizations across the political spectrum, from village councils to national advocacy groups, are going on record opposing this newest potential assault on Americans’ civil liberties.
According to the 120-page Patriot II document, any suspected terrorist’s DNA would be entered into a database, even if that person had not been convicted of a crime. It also evokes memories of the infamous Operation TIPS, a program that aimed to recruit businesses and citizens to provide information on suspected terrorists, as it would relieve informers from liability if they make false claims. “It provides a legal framework for people to spy and rat on neighbors,” says Tim Edgar, a legislative counsel with the ACLU.
Patriot II would also make it legal for the government to refuse to identify, even to family members, any detainees it is holding without charges. And Patriot II would likely contain no sunset clause, unlike the original Patriot Act, which had a five-year sunset clause. If Patriot II is passed, it could be here to stay.
The first Patriot Act was whisked through Congress in the chaos following 9/11, leaving little time for organizations to educate people about the dangers posed by the legislation.
“There was no education before the law was passed,” says Rasheed Ahmed, president of the Muslim Civil Rights Center in Chicago, which has helped to organize educational forums throughout the city. “Its’ impact is a culture of secret trials, secret evidence, secret deportations, and secret law enforcement. There is no congressional oversight.”
Despite slow beginnings, public concern over the original Patriot Act is on the rise, as local and state governments, along with other organizations, have gone on record opposing the act. More recent resolutions have also included Patriot II. According to the ACLU, 143 communities have passed such resolutions in 27 states, representing almost 17 million people. In addition, the legislatures of Alaska, Hawaii, and Vermont have similarly voiced their opposition. In Alaska’s Republican-controlled legislature, the resolution garnered only one vote against it.
After 9/11, citizens of Provincetown, Massachusetts, formed the Lower Cape Cod Peace and Justice Circle, with the mission of educating the local community about international and domestic events. In April, the group drew up a resolution against the Patriot Act and took it to a town meeting expecting the worst. “We expected a floor fight, and the thing passed without much discussion,” says John Hopkins, one of the group’s organizers. “We were in shock.” The resolution was one of the first of its kind on Cape Cod, and touched off a flurry of similar proclamations in surrounding towns.
Organizers are hoping that such resolutions will serve as building blocks of public opposition to the Patriot II Act.
“It’s a concern shared across the board from right to left,” says Damon Moglen of the ACLU. “You’ve got the NAACP working with the ACLU working with the NRA.”
The ACLU has taken the reins of the grassroots movement with its Safe and Free Campaign to combat the Patriot Act and Patriot II, but other groups like the League of Women Voters and Neighbors for Peace have done their part to spread the word about the Patriot II.
The Idaho Green Party launched the Paul Revere Project and is compiling an e-mail list to inform people about the status of Patriot II legislation, along with other pertinent alerts. Prominent conservatives have spoken out against the acts as well, including former NRA vice president Wayne Anthony Ross and Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska).
Gun Owners of America, based in Springfield, Virginia, posted an editorial opposing Patriot II on its Web site. “When I feel the heat I see the light,” says director of communications Erich Pratt. “There’s something in here to offend everybody, and I think that’s why you see such a wide coalition of diverse groups.”
source: http://www.inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=303_0_2_0_C
--------------
Published on Thursday, February 2, 2006 by the Madison Capital-Times (Wisconsin)
Bush's War on T-Shirts
Editorial

Minutes before the U.S. president would tell Congress how much he appreciates "responsible criticism and counsel," the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq was dragged from a gallery overlooking the House chamber, handcuffed and arrested for the "crime" of wearing a T-shirt that read: "2,245 dead. How many more?"

Cindy Sheehan, who had been invited to attend George Bush's State of the Union address by Rep. Lynn Woolsey, the California Democrat who co-chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus, did not put the "dangerous" shirt on for the event. The woman whose protest last summer outside the president's ranch in Crawford, Texas, drew international attention to the anti-war movement had been wearing it at events earlier in the day.

Indeed, as Sheehan, who had passed through Capitol security monitors without incident, noted, "I knew that I couldn't disrupt the address because Lynn had given me the ticket and I didn't want to be disruptive out of respect for her."

No one has suggested that Sheehan was in any way disruptive. So why was she arrested?

Because, as Sheehan recounts, she was identified as a dissident.

Before the arrest, media reports buzzed about official concern over Sheehan's presence. And, as she was being dragged from a room where Bush would shortly extol the virtues of freedom and liberty, police explicitly told Sheehan that she was being removed "because you were protesting."

Capitol Police and other security officials, whose rough treatment of Sheehan was witnessed by dozens of people who attended Bush's speech, said she was arrested for "unlawful conduct." Conveniently, she was held until after the president finished speaking. The next day. the charges were dropped.

Is there really a law against wearing a political T-shirt to the State of the Union address? No.

The Capitol Police do have protocols that are followed in order to avoid "incidents" during major events. But their own actions Tuesday night confirm that Sheehan was singled out for rough justice.

Beverly Young, the wife of Rep. C.W. Bill Young, a Florida Republican who chairs the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee, showed up for the State of the Union address sporting a T-shirt that read, "Support the Troops Defending Our Freedom." When Capitol Police asked her to leave the gallery because she was wearing clothing that featured a political message, Young says, she argued loudly with officers and called one of them "an idiot."

But Young was not handcuffed. She was not dragged from the Capitol. She was not arrested. She was not jailed.

Sheehan, who caused no ruckus, was arrested not because she engaged in "unlawful conduct." Rather, by all accounts, she was arrested because of what her T-shirt said and, by extension, because of what she believes.

That makes this a most serious matter. Rep. Pete Stark, the California Democrat who is one of the senior members of the House, is right when he said that Sheehan's arrest by officers he refers to as "the president's Gestapo" tells us a lot more about George Bush and the sorry state of our basic liberties in the midst of the president's open-ended "war on terror" than anything that was said in the State of the Union address. "It shows he still has a thin skin," Stark said.

It also shows that the father of the Constitution, James Madison, was right when he warned that, in times of war, the greatest danger to America would not be foreign foes but presidents and their minions, who would abuse the powers of the executive branch with the purpose of "subduing the force of the people."

This one incident involving one T-shirt is a minor matter. But, seen in the context of the mounting evidence of constraints on legitimate protest, warrant-less wiretaps and the abuses of the Patriot Act, it reminds us of the truth of Madison's warning that "no nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
source: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0202-25.htm