[Article] Cindy Sheehan arrested for wearing a t-shirt

Orion

What possible justification could there be for this? Isn't free speech enshrined in the US constitution? I'll be interested to see if she's actually prosecuted for having an opinion.

Reuters wrote:

Anti-war activist Sheehan arrested on Capitol Hill
Anti-Iraq war activist Cindy Sheehan was arrested in the House of Representatives chamber shortly before President George W. Bush gave his State of the Union address because she refused to cover up an anti-war slogan on her shirt.

Ms Sheehan, who was attending the speech as the guest of US Democratic Congressman Lynn Woolsey of California, was taken from the Capitol in handcuffs and charged with unlawful conduct, said Capitol Police Sergeant Kimberly Schneider.

A photographer said Ms Sheehan entered the House gallery a few minutes before Mr Bush was to speak and was directed to her seat.

She had been seated for less than a minute when a plainclothes Capitol Police officer took her by the arm, said, "You've got to leave," and rushed her from the gallery.

Ms Sheehan did not resist and left with a smile.

Rather than hearing Mr Bush say in his speech that there would be no sudden US withdrawal from Iraq, Sheehan was being processed at the US Capitol Police headquarters near the Capitol.

Sergeant Schneider said Ms Sheehan was arrested because she was wearing a T-shirt with an anti-war slogan and refused to cover it up.

She said the unlawful conduct charge carries a maximum sentence of one year in jail.

Ms Sheehan, who became a central figure for the US anti-war movement after her son Casey was killed in the Iraq war, won wide attention with an anti-war vigil outside Bush's Texas ranch.

Sheehan and other activists were arrested in September for protesting outside the White House without a permit, a misdemeanor that carriers a $50 fine.

GypsumFantastic

Macros42 wrote:

What possible justification could there be for this? Isn't free speech enshrined in the US constitution? I'll be interested to see if she's actually prosecuted for having an opinion.

It might be against House rules - displaying of a political slogan or somesuch.

Orion

hehehe - no displaying of a political slogan in the home of politicians

GypsumFantastic

Macros42 wrote:

hehehe - no displaying of a political slogan in the home of politicians

Well, it might be. It's to avoid the debate descending into cheap sloganeering. Hell, they could all wear T-shirts and just not bother saying anything.

I have to say she's always struck me as a bit unwell. I feel sorry for her, to be honest.

A Dub in Glasgo

GypsumFantastic wrote:

I have to say she's always struck me as a bit unwell. .

In what way?

GypsumFantastic

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

In what way?

I think she's mentally unwell. Losing a son might do that, I imagine. But then attributing child-like innocence to him in death won't help her mental state either. I'm a bit uneasy with the way Democrats have exploited her grief when she is, in my view, vulnerable and easily manipulated - for example, giving a speech in support of Lynne Stewart, the lawyer convicted of aiding terrorists. Either her state of shock has allowed her to be manipulated into situations and comments she would not ordinarily have made or her own personal political agenda is in agreement with those situations and comments, and predates her son's death, and she is simply using the public platform available to her since her son's death to push that agenda. Either scenario leaves me feeling uncomfortable.

Zombrex

GypsumFantastic wrote:

Either her state of shock has allowed her to be manipulated into situations and comments she would not ordinarily have made or her own personal political agenda is in agreement with those situations and comments, and predates her son's death, and she is simply using the public platform available to her since her son's death to push that agenda. Either scenario leaves me feeling uncomfortable.

That is a very cinical position.

I would imagine she is one of the few people in American who can truely know the cost of the war. To suggest she is pushing a predetermined "agenda" on top of her sons death is a far more uncomfortable statement imho

The idea that once some has been personally effected by a war they should no longer express an opinion on if the war because they are using their loss for their "agenda", is nonsense. This woman knows better than most the effect of the Iraq war. The American public should be allowed to listen to her, not shut her up because she is an embarrasment for the administration.

A Dub in Glasgo

GypsumFantastic wrote:

I think she's mentally unwell. Losing a son might do that, I imagine. But then attributing child-like innocence to him in death won't help her mental state either. I'm a bit uneasy with the way Democrats have exploited her grief when she is, in my view, vulnerable and easily manipulated - for example, giving a speech in support of Lynne Stewart, the lawyer convicted of aiding terrorists. Either her state of shock has allowed her to be manipulated into situations and comments she would not ordinarily have made or her own personal political agenda is in agreement with those situations and comments, and predates her son's death, and she is simply using the public platform available to her since her son's death to push that agenda. Either scenario leaves me feeling uncomfortable.

What I find uncomfortable is you trying to undermine someone who has been directly affected by the invasion of Iraq with stories of her being mentally unwell .

GypsumFantastic

Wicknight wrote:

That is a very cinical position.

I would imagine she is one of the few people in American who can truely know the cost of the war. To suggest she is pushing a predetermined "agenda" on top of her sons death is a far more uncomfortable statement imho

As I said, she is either doing that or is being pushed into situations and comments she would not ordinarily have made - in which case, she is being manipulated.

Wicknight wrote:

The idea that once some has been personally effected by a war they should no longer express an opinion on if the war because they are using their loss for their "agenda", is nonsense. This woman knows better than most the effect of the Iraq war. The American public should be allowed to listen to her, not shut her up because she is an embarrasment for the administration.

I never stated that she shouldn't be allowed to state her opinion - though she can hardly claim to be silenced given the extensive media coverage she receives - nor did I say she should be shut up. I merely gave my opinion of her.

GypsumFantastic

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

What I find uncomfortable is you trying to undermine someone who has been directly affected by the invasion of Iraq with stories of her being mentally unwell .

That's up to you but I've posted a couple of reasons why I think so.

The reality that she is unable to face is that her son was an adult who volunteered to join the army, volunteered for a second tour and even volunteered for the mission that eventually killed him - and it was insurgents that killed him, not George Bush as Sheehan vainly repeats. Until she faces up to that reality then I fear she will continue to veer off into the extreme elements of the Left agenda (either of her own choice or others) - which are unrelated to Casey Sheehan's death - and continue to be viewed as a slightly unstable, grief-stricken parent.

Zombrex

GypsumFantastic wrote:

I merely gave my opinion of her.

A negative opinion, that you didn't really explain.

Whats wrong with her saying that she lost a son in Iraq when she is demonstrating against the war? Should she pretend she didn't?

sovtek

GypsumFantastic wrote:

I'm a bit uneasy with the way Democrats have exploited her grief when she is, in my view, vulnerable and easily manipulated - for example, giving a speech in support of Lynne Stewart, the lawyer convicted of aiding terrorists.

Cindy Sheehan has shown herself to be quite strong and to be very clear on what she supports and doesn't. Hillary Clinton should be very afraid!
Lynne Stewarts essentially was convicted of doing her job which was to defend her client.

http://www.counterpunch.org/bergen02112005.html

Macros42

Macros42 wrote:

Isn't free speech enshrined in the US constitution?

Would you back a Klan march through Harlem?

Should a child be allowed to rent hardcore porn?

While she may have a point, the law is the law. And the right to freedom of expression is not absolute.

Zombrex

Deleted User wrote:

Would you back a Klan march through Harlem?

Should a child be allowed to rent hardcore porn?

While she may have a point, the law is the law. And the right to freedom of expression is not absolute.

Well technically the KKK can march through Harlem and a you can produce a hardcore porn movie (in America). The chlid viewing it is a completely seperate issue.

And all Sheehan did was wear an anti-War T-Shirt in a public place, a place where she was invited. I am still not clear on what law she broke by doing this?

Ag marbh

GypsumFantastic wrote:

I have to say she's always struck me as a bit unwell. I feel sorry for her, to be honest.

Well or unwell her message is good!

GypsumFantastic

Wicknight wrote:

A negative opinion, that you didn't really explain.

I did explain it.

Wicknight wrote:

Whats wrong with her saying that she lost a son in Iraq when she is demonstrating against the war? Should she pretend she didn't?

I never said there was anything wrong with it. I merely said I disagreed with her opinion. As for her arrest, I suggested that she may have broken some rules in the House with regards to the display of political banners or statements.

GypsumFantastic

sovtek wrote:

Cindy Sheehan has shown herself to be quite strong and to be very clear on what she supports and doesn't.

Yes, she wants 'Israel out of Palestine', for a start. Embdy know what that's got to to do with Casey Sheehan's murder at the hands of insurgents in Iraq?

sovtek wrote:

Lynne Stewarts essentially was convicted of doing her job which was to defend her client.

No, she was convicted on five counts, including conspiracy to defraud the United States, providing and concealing material support to terrorist activity, and making false statements to the Department of Justice.

Not the kind of person Sheehan should support, in my view. Perhaps you disagree.

Zombrex

GypsumFantastic wrote:

I merely said I disagreed with her opinion.

No, you said you thought she was mentally unstable and that her actions make you uncomfortable, even if she is completely behind the anti-war movement she is a part of and is not being manipulated by the movement.

I don;t understand that position. Why does a woman strongly campaigning against the war, a war in which her son was killed, make you uncomfortable?

GypsumFantastic

Wicknight wrote:

No, you said you thought she was mentally unstable and that her actions make you uncomfortable, even if she is completely behind the anti-war movement she is a part of and is not being manipulated by the movement.

I don;t understand that position. Why does a woman strongly campaigning against the war, a war in which her son was killed, make you uncomfortable?

I never said her actions made me uncomfortable. I said it was the motivation behind her various 'activities' (as her divorced husband put it) that left me uncomfortable. You don't believe she is being manipulated. That's fine that you have that confidence. I don't share it.

Hobbes

She is not liked, and as such she has been asked a large number of questions on a range of issues in the attempt to discredit her. Its quite intresting to watch to be honest on how character assasination works.

She was removed probably because if you were wearing anti-war t-shirt odds on your going to be a disturbance. Although Bush is well known for vetting the audience to ensure that everyone loves him (quite sad).

On the bright side at least she only got removed. Could of been worse, she could of been held down by secret service while an onlooker got free kicks in.

constitutionus

methinks i sense a lawsuit the yanks take freedom of speach VERY seriously and the t-shirt COULD fall under that description. at the very least its againts freedom of expression. could be more to see here, particularly seeing as she was smiling as she was led away. looks like she might have got what she wants.
ya gotta admit from a PR point of view it looks BAAAAAAD.

can you imagine what joe soap is saying

person A :" whos your woman who got arrested?"

person b:" shes the one whos kid got killed in bush's war"

ShayHT

The KKK spread racial hatred.

Hardcore porn is rated for a reason and has nothing to do with freedom of speech/expression.

Deleted User wrote:

Would you back a Klan march through Harlem?

Should a child be allowed to rent hardcore porn?

Hobbes

Here is the T-Shirt she was wearing.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/images/sotu/pages/IMGP2618_JPG.htm

She left when she was told to leave.

Hardly worth being put into prison with a possible 1 years prison time (the charge carries).

Here is Cindys full details of the incident.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/1/31944/23746#51

murphaph

Does anybody remember that mother of that submariner who perished on board Kursk being dragged out of that hall where (I think) Putin was addressing the crowd? That just popped into my mind reading this thread :eek:

lostexpectation

http://cleveland.indymedia.org/news/2006/01/18586.php

Manic Moran

The State of the Union address has tended to be something of a formalised affair, with various attendant 'rules.' One of which is quite probably a dress code that an imflammatory T-shirt would violate. That, and the security chaps probably figured that if she's wearing such an adventurous T-shirt, she might well cause a vocal disturbance later, which would be just not cricket.

Even the recognised elected opposition don't get to speak at the State of the Union, the response is usually sent over the airwaves from a studio.

NTM

ISAW

GypsumFantastic wrote:

I think she's mentally unwell. Losing a son might do that, I imagine. But then attributing child-like innocence to him in death won't help her mental state either. I'm a bit uneasy with the way Democrats have exploited her grief when she is, in my view, vulnerable and easily manipulated - for example, giving a speech in support of Lynne Stewart, the lawyer convicted of aiding terrorists. Either her state of shock has allowed her to be manipulated into situations and comments she would not ordinarily have made or her own personal political agenda is in agreement with those situations and comments, and predates her son's death, and she is simply using the public platform available to her since her son's death to push that agenda. Either scenario leaves me feeling uncomfortable.

Tell me more about this Lynne Stewart thing. How and where did this speech in support of her happen?

As regards soldiers being manipulated into positions did you ever hear of Private Jessica Lynch? do you know her real story about her NOT being kidnapped NOT being active in combat. Being HELPED by Iraquis and NOT being imprisioned by them? This was clearly a manipulation story? Did Fox carry it? See the other thread about Fox news for that.

Army Sgt. Cassaundra Grant lost her left leg, and eventually her right, when she was pinned under a tank that her transportation unit was moving in Kuwait on March 14. She was treated at Walter Reed Hospital, and eventually transferred to the Brooke Medical Center in Texas on April 3 -- the same day that the sensationalized Jessica Lynch story headlined the Washington Post. Her story conflicts with the glamorized women-in-combat agenda. Were efforts made to suppress or eclipse the story of Sgt. Casaundra Grant, especially on the day that she left Walter Reed? Are there stories about other female soldiers that so far have been considered too sensitive to reveal? You bet there are! do Fox News carry them?

sovtek

Manic Moran wrote:

The State of the Union address has tended to be something of a formalised affair, with various attendant 'rules.' One of which is quite probably a dress code that an imflammatory T-shirt would violate.

Are you defending the arrest of someone for violating a dress code? She wasn't escorted out by security...she was arrested.

sovtek

ISAW wrote:

Tell me more about this Lynne Stewart thing.

I posted an article on it.

ISAW

sovtek wrote:

I posted an article on it.

Where did you post the article? where did cindy sheehan support Lynne Stewart? And what speech was given [by sheehan] in defence of her [stewart] as you claim and when was it given?

Orion

Deleted User wrote:

Would you back a Klan march through Harlem?

oh ffs.

We're talking about an anti-war protester wearing an anti-war t-shirt which had the number 2242 on it - the number of US soldiers killed in Iraq. How can you possible equate that with the Klan? :rolleyes:

Hobbes

GypsumFantastic wrote:

No, she was convicted on five counts, including conspiracy to defraud the United States, providing and concealing material support to terrorist activity, and making false statements to the Department of Justice.

do you have a link to where you got that information from?

The reason I ask is all I can find is that she was told to sign a form which basically removed rights from her Client and she then ignored that document. She didn't concel anything, she was using Privilage as a Lawyer and as for providing material it was a press conference where she relayed her clients statement. She even did a second press release to confirm that the first statement was not a fatwa.

Now you can say she broke the law but the fact of the matter is that there shouldn't be two seperate laws for people in the land.

As for her and cindy, Cindy attended a rally for Lynne and said "she considered Lynne Stewart her Atticus Finch"

LostinBlanch

I've heard this argument that Gypsum is using before. But from the extreme right wing end of the Republican spectrum.

They realised they couldn't be seen to attack Cindy Sheehan becuase she is the mother of a war hero. So instead they start the whispering campaign against her "Poor woman she's deranged with grief etc etc" thus drawing attention away from her embarassing questions. Sad but then again it's the kind of behaviour we have come to expect from them.

Sand

Whilst Cindy Sheehan is well entitled to voice her views, is she entitled to use her son as a battering ram for them?

He was, as pointed out, an adult who volunteered for service twice, the second time as the Iraq invasion was underway so he cannot have been "tricked" into going there. He also volunteered for the mission on which he died. His decision, whether his mother liked it or not, was to serve in the army and in that war. Is it justifiable then to use his memory to campaign against something he had no problem - apparently - serving in? He must have seen some worth in it to volunteer for it.

I dont think Cindy Sheehan sees it that way, the Gold Star Families for Peace organisation she helped found demanded Bush send his daughters to Iraq, as if they were some legal extension of himself. Wouldnt it imply she had signed her son up for the military?

Whilst some people have denounced even questioning that Cindy Sheenhan has been manipulated it is worth noting that her views on Bush and stated remarks on her meeting with him a few months after her sons death have altered drastically, from describing him as"...sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis...I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith." to "one of the most disgusting experiences I ever had and it took me almost a year to even talk about it...... his mouth kept moving, but there was nothing in his eyes or anything else about him that showed me he really cared or had any real compassion at all" a year later. Thats two very different recollections of the meeting, the later one contradicting her immediate impressions of the meeting.

oh ffs.

We're talking about an anti-war protester wearing an anti-war t-shirt which had the number 2242 on it - the number of US soldiers killed in Iraq. How can you possible equate that with the Klan?

Free speech isnt just for what you want to hear. Someone drew an interesting link between the trial of David Irving in Austria and that Turkish writer who mentioned the Armenian genocide. Both were being punished for testing the limits of free speech. Someone who claims to be favour of free speech without limitations must be in favour of both. Seeing as people wouldnt be in favour of *both*, that means we accept there are limits to free speech. Which may or may not include preventing one woman disrupting the speaker with a democratic electoral mandate. Otherwise what would stop the die hard wing of the Reps or the Dems travelling to every political gig of their opponents and disrupting/sabotaging speakers?

Manic Moran

Whilst Cindy Sheehan is well entitled to voice her views, is she entitled to use her son as a battering ram for them?

A fair question. Whilst Cindy is getting all the press, people are forgetting that SPC Sheehan had two parents, not one. You will note that Patrick Sheehan is apparently less approving of Cindy's actions. I don't think I've ever heard him voice an opinion one way or the other but the two facts that he has never stated support for her position, and the divorce filed after she began her activism (And the public press release by other members of the Sheehan Clan disavowing her actions) appear to indicate general disapproval of the conduct.

More controversial is her use of the names of other people's sons to further her views. The names of the fallen are public record, yet other families have specifically requested that their sons/daughters names not be used by Sheehan. (In one case, parents drove to Texas where she was staging her sit-in and demanded that the cross with their son's name on it be removed: They did not want their son's name used for her political goals)

I wonder what SPC Sheehan's opinions on the war were before he was killed?

NTM

Hobbes

All I could find on record was her Husband disapproves of what she does although he does know that the war was started on a lie. As for her in-laws disagreeing, its a fact. So what? As Cindy said people are entitled to thier opinion and she has never villified her in-laws or ex-husband for thier opinions.

I find it funny that all the attacks on Cindys arguments are directed at her rather then what she is saying.

Basically this, Bush started the war in Iraq on a lie that he knew to be a lie and should be impeached for it.

This T-Shirt incident is just another thing. She was arrested and detained over night for wearing a T-Shirt. At no time was she told she couldn't wear it and was treated very roughly by secret service until they realised who they had. She was detained for a crime she didn't commit but people assumed she would in the future.

Which is the whole crux of the argument too. Should you be allowed to detain people on the premise they may commit a crime in the future, yet have no evidence to back this up?

Hobbes

Sand wrote:

it is worth noting that her views on Bush and stated remarks on her meeting with him a few months after her sons death have altered drastically,

Actually they hadn't altered all that much. Another trick I have seen is to quote bits rather then the whole.

For example from the same report you quoted she also said

"We haven't been happy with the way the war has been handled, The president has changed his reasons for being over there every time a reason is proven false or an objective reached."

Doesn't sound like someone who agreed with the president to me.

Manic Moran

Which is the whole crux of the argument too. Should you be allowed to detain people on the premise they may commit a crime in the future, yet have no evidence to back this up?

The management reserves the right to refuse service to anyone?

I don't know what the rules are for the Capitol Building. Might just be as simple as 'Breach of the Peace'

NTM

Hobbes

Manic Moran wrote:

The management reserves the right to refuse service to anyone?

I don't know what the rules are for the Capitol Building. Might just be as simple as 'Breach of the Peace'

NTM

Being tossed out is one thing. She went to jail and is being charged with Unlawful conduct is another. Charge carries 1-7 years in prison.

Of course it is unlikely she will see jail time, it would be very hard to make a charge stick on someone who hadn't actually done anything.

solas

apparantly she wasn't the only one kicked out, The wife of Rep. C.W. Bill Young said she was ejected during President Bush's State of the Union address for wearing a T-shirt that said, "Support the Troops Defending Our Freedom."
http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/13763761.htm

Sheehan's dailykos diary:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/1/31944/23746

Manic Moran

They've already been dropped.

What is not so well reported, it seems, is that the wife of Congressman. Bill Young, a Republican, was also ejected from the State of the Union Address for wearing a political T-Shirt. "Support the Troops: Defending Our Freedom." Are the media being as even-handed on the issue as the Capitol Police were?

However, the Capitol Police Chief has said that two ejections might have been an over-reaction by his officers. From the BBC:

"The officers made a good faith, but mistaken, effort to enforce an old unwritten interpretation of the prohibitions about demonstrating in the Capitol," Mr Gainer said.

"The policy and procedures were too vague. The failure to adequately prepare the officers is mine."

NTM

GypsumFantastic

ISAW wrote:

Tell me more about this Lynne Stewart thing. How and where did this speech in support of her happen?

The speech came at a rally in support of Ms Stewart at San Francisco State University on April 27, 2005. She referred to Ms Stewart, convicted of conspiracy to support terrorist activity, as 'her Atticus Finch', saying 'she did what she knew was right'.

GypsumFantastic

Hobbes wrote:

do you have a link to where you got that information from?

Here is one such site that states her conviction -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4255885.stm

Hobbes wrote:

As for her and cindy, Cindy attended a rally for Lynne and said "she considered Lynne Stewart her Atticus Finch"

That's right, she did.

GypsumFantastic

Sand wrote:

Whilst some people have denounced even questioning that Cindy Sheenhan has been manipulated it is worth noting that her views on Bush and stated remarks on her meeting with him a few months after her sons death have altered drastically,

Quite. Remember when she held the sit-in at the ranch she 'demanded' a meeting with President Bush despite having already met him months earlier - the previous meeting seemingly erased from her memory.

It's incidents like this, and others, that make me question whether she actually understands what she's doing.

GypsumFantastic

Hobbes wrote:

I find it funny that all the attacks on Cindys arguments are directed at her rather then what she is saying.

Because, at least with Ms Sheehan I suspect, any argument would be futile. Arguments about the Iraq war have been done to death and, really, no-one is going to change sides now. I did say I disagreed with her but this doesn't mean I forego the right to point out that her behaviour has been erratic and she has ventured in other 'non-Iraq' areas politically either knowingly or otherwise.

Manic Moran

More food for thought: It appears that back in the Clinton impeachment hearings, a chap named Dave Delp was removed from the gallery for wearing a T-Shirt saying "Clinton doesn't inhale: He just sucks."

So this has been a long-standing policy.

However, it seems that in all three cases (Sheehan, Young, Delp), the Capitol Police were wrong. Here's the relevant part of the code, saying this is prohibited:

"(2) display in the Grounds a flag, banner, or device designed or adapted to bring into public notice a party, organization, or movement."

However: Capitol Police guidance interprets ’demonstration activity,’ and the guidance specifically provides that it "does not include merely wearing Tee shirts, buttons or other similar articles of apparel that convey a message."

Now, apparently there's more: Any action which draws attention to the T-shirt is disruptive, and barred. I'm hearing that Sheehan actually did have a banner with her. As soon as that banner would have been unrolled, even if the banner itself said nothing particular, it would have attracted attention to her and the T-shirt, and she could have been legally jettisoned.

So, in summary, in all three cases, Capitol Police overstepped the mark. It is a far jump from this to saying that this was an example of Bush's Jack-Booted Thugs suppressing dissent over the war, which is apparently a commonly heard claim.

NTM

ISAW

GypsumFantastic wrote:

The speech came at a rally in support of Ms Stewart at San Francisco State University on April 27, 2005. She referred to Ms Stewart, convicted of conspiracy to support terrorist activity, as 'her Atticus Finch', saying 'she did what she knew was right'.

So she is guilty of what? and she is guilty of it because she is associated with someone convicted of conspiracy or of supporting terrorists? Doesn't Bush have personal associations with the Bin Laden family and the fundamentalist anti woman Saud family who run the autocracy of Saudi Arabia (even the country is named after them!). What does that make Bush by association?

Were the Sons of Liberty conspiring against the authorities in America?

Hobbes

GypsumFantastic wrote:

Here is one such site that states her conviction -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4255885.stm

Which is a scaled down version of what I already mentioned.

GypsumFantastic

ISAW wrote:

So she is guilty of what?

Guilty of supporting a lawyer convicted of aiding terrorist activity.

I'm sorry if this is proving difficult for you.

GypsumFantastic

Hobbes wrote:

Which is a scaled down version of what I already mentioned.

Not really. One was stating she was convicted of supporting terrorists; yours was suggesting something tantamount to a minor administrative error.

Zombrex

GypsumFantastic wrote:

Not really. One was stating she was convicted of supporting terrorists; yours was suggesting something tantamount to a minor administrative error.

She wasn't conviced to supporting terrorist, she was conviced of disobeying an order to not facilitate communication between her client and the outside world because the state department believed her client was a terrorist.

There is a big difference.