Bush has a history of arresting protesters, knowing at the time that the person did not violate the law, but nonetheless ordering or allowing the arrest to accomplish a strategic political goal. What do you call it when a chief executive, whether president or governor, permits or orders arrests that are illegal? Abuse of power seems so lame. For now, we can call this the Sheehan Maneuver.
But questions remain. Who was the 3rd man ejected from SOTU? And, why did MSNBC apparently delete from its article the quote from police official that they knew it was illegal to arrest Sheehan?
It is the basic Texas 2-step: Arrest people engaged in lawful protest or expression of opinion and then release the next day without filing charges, or later dropping charges that had been filed, as there were no legal grounds for the arrest in the first place. For example, when he was Governor of Texas in 1999, Bush unilaterally changed the rules permitting protesters to protest on the public sidewalk outside the governor’s mansion. (It should be noted that this executive change of state law was not published and remained a secret law when this occurred in 1999.) Bush ordered law enforcement officials to arrest protesters at this public forum. So, protesters were arrested, held overnight and then released without charges filed as Texas law was not violated.
What could be Bush’s stealth motive for intentionally taking actions that violated Texas laws and customs? In this case, the protesters were protesting legislation pending before the Texas Legislature that the protesters believed encouraged industrial pollution so they wanted to petition their government for the passage of clean air laws. However, <u>silencing the protesters by arresting them also silenced the issue with the result that the “clean air legislation lost by a slim margin in the Texas Legislature.</u> It is quite possible that the governor’s action stymied protesters’ goal to educate Texas legislators on the issue.”
The reporter for this 1999 article stated it succinctly:
“We should remember, this is the same presidential candidate who has tried to stop all parodies of him, his candidacy and his political stances on the World Wide Web. This is the same candidate who said in a televised news conference, `There ought to be limits to freedom.’ His political track record in Texas, though short, shows that his statement wasn’t a gaffe, but truly reveals his motivations and beliefs. And this is the man who wants to be the leader of the nation which represents the world’s great hope for liberty?”
Arresting Cindy last night shows a revival of the Texas 2-step. Cindy Sheehan was arrested for unlawful conduct and a GOP Rep’s wife was ejected from the House gallery at the SOTU for wearing T-shirts with political messages. Cindy’s T-shirt said “2245 Dead. How many more?” and the Rep’s wife’s T-shirt said “Support the Troops – Defending Our Freedom.” Forced removal and/or arrest for wearing a T-Shirt that criticizes Bush’s policies is now an established pattern at taxpayer-funded events for Bush. It appears that the GOP lawmaker’s wife was removed after Sheehan “only because they were aware that if they failed to, they would be accused of unequal treatment.”
The next day, the police dropped charges against Cindy. Capitol Police Chief Gainer apologized to the GOP Rep and his wife and “a similar message has been left with Mrs. Sheehan.” Sounds like Cindy received the “similar message” of apology only because it would have appeared unseemly to only give what sounds like a personal apology to the GOP Rep and his wife.
Once again, “the law is clear that Sheehan did nothing illegal and there was no legal basis whatsoever for removing and arresting her for wearing that t-shirt.” In fact, the police knew Cindy should not have been arrested:
“‘We screwed up,’ a top Capitol Police official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. He said Sheehan didn’t violate any rules or laws.”
It should be noted that a UPI report similarly notes “We screwed up, a Capitol Police official told the network, speaking on condition of anonymity.” However, this admission is no longer included at the MSNBC link cited by both Brad and Glenn. Someone scrubbing here?
As for the motive behind arresting Cindy? Similar to the Texas protesters, Bush wanted to control the message delivered to the public. Bush would not want his big night before America and the world to be spoiled by TV cameras focusing on Cindy sitting there with her T-Shirt criticizing him. Some TV station may have even used a split-screen to show both Cindy and Bush at the same time. Moreover, Bush wanted the media coverage on the day after SOTU to be focused on the content of his address, not the issue of Cindy. Well, Bush may wish to revisit that notion, given that a surprising number of media reports of his SOTU were downright honest for a change. Here are a few:
“His credibility no longer the asset it once was, the president begged Americans’ indulgence for another chance to fix things. There is no shortage: the Iraq war, global terrorism, a nuclear Iran, a stingy global economy, skyrocketing health care costs, troubled U.S. schools, rising fuel costs, looming budget deficits and government corruption. All received presidential attention Tuesday night…. The problem for Bush is that few of these troubles are new. He’s had five years to ease people’s pain.”
“The president’s justification for his spy program has disputable roots, as do some of the facts and figures he put forth in his speech.”
“In other sections of his speech, Bush omitted context or made rhetorical claims that are open to question.”
“Whether promoting a plan to `save Social Security’ or describing Iraqi security forces as `increasingly capable of defeating the enemy,’ Bush skipped over some complex realities in his State of the Union speech.”
The only question remaining is why was a third person removed from the gallery?
A “foreign-born American citizen who was the guest of Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., also was taken by police from the gallery just above the House floor, Hastings said Wednesday.”
