War Protestors Arrested at Leahy's Office

[shance]

10 War Protesters Arrested at Leahy’s Office
by Sam Hemingway



BURLINGTON, Vermont - Police arrested 10 anti-war demonstrators Tuesday participating in a sit-in at Sen. Patrick Leahy’s Burlington office to demand he stop supporting an Iraq troop withdrawal bill they said would extend the Iraq war, not end it.

”This is an immoral war and an illegal war,” said Marmete Hayes, 83, of Burlington as she stood in handcuffs at the entrance to the Courthouse Plaza complex where Leahy’s office is located. “It demands strong action on the part of dissenters.”

All 10 were arrested after refusing to leave Leahy’s office when it closed at 5 p.m. Police handcuffed the 10 and issued them no trespassing citations before releasing them.

Three, including Hayes, could face criminal prosecution because they were also arrested at a March 27 sit-in at the Burlington offices of Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., or a March 21 sit-in at the Burlington offices of Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt.

“This is not a withdrawal plan,” said James Leas of South Burlington, referring to a Senate-passed bill that sets a March 31, 2008, target for ending combat operations in Iraq. “It’s a plan to continue the war. Senator Leahy should withdraw his name supporting this legislation.”

Leas and others said the bill was flawed because it contains language that allows troops serving in training and security operations to remain in Iraq indefinitely. They also derided a bill with tougher language introduced Monday by Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., as similarly flawed.

Ross reminded the protesters that Leahy, a Democrat, has opposed the war from the start, as have Sanders and Welch.

“The senator is frustrated that we are there and has said so from the get-go,” Ross said. “He has heard Vermonters speak out on this since before the war began.”

Several of the demonstrators, including one who identified herself as an eighth-grade teacher of Leahy, said they respected him and praised his investigation into the role of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in the firing of eight U.S. attorneys.

“Thank You For Going After Gonzales,” read one of several signs held by protesters as they talked with Ross. “Now Stop Supporting The Fake Withdrawal.” Another sign read “Good Job With Gonzales.”

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070404/NEWS02/704040318/1007&theme=

[shadowknows69]

1. An 83 year old

anyone else feeling like a lazy piece of shit right now?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

3. Not at all, thank you very much. (nt)

[shance]

9. LOL! Absolutely.

Bless that wonderful lady.

She get's what we will lose if we don't fight.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. These are the exact people Obey was talking about.

And Obey was completely right. These idiotic, infantile actions embarrass us all.

[shadowknows69]

4. Your feelings on that aside

it take some serious moxie for an 83 year old to go out and picket.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

6. I'll give you that.

I'd rather see him protesting someone else. For instance, I don't know, maybe someone that doesn't already support the side he's protesting for. I'd also rather see him pick up a newspaper first and figure out what the fuck is actually going on.

[EFerrari]

14. Well, the Code Pinkers that met with Pelosi's guy in San Francisco

knew the bill better than he did. In fact, most of the demonstrators I've met since January are extremely well informed.

[shance]

15. Absolutely Expat. Many of our legislators don't even KNOW what they're passing.

It's not good.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

21. Senator Leahy is ON THE COMMITTEE the bill passed through!

Do you really honestly think he doesn't know what was in the bill?

[EFerrari]

49. No. I was addressing your implication that protestors

are ill informed.

[Iwasthere]

5. BS!

Leahy needs to understand that you cannot compromise with *. Start tougher!!!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

8. YOU need to understand that it is NOT POSSIBLE to start any tougher.

Do you have even the first pittance of a clue how hard it was to get this passed? Apparently not.

[Selatius]

10. The bill will be vetoed at any rate by Bush.

If they wanted to beef up the language further, they likely could have. Of course, it probably wouldn't pass the Senate and it almost failed in the House because folks like Kucinich and some other Dems voted against it citing the same reason these protesters cited: That it would provide a loophole to prolong the war instead of shortening it.

The point of a grassroots protest movement is not to adopt the same compromises that the politicians in Congress adopt. The point of such a movement is to apply pressure on the politicians until the point of the movement is achieved.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

23. But you're applying it in EXACTLY the wrong place.

I guarantee you upon penalty of death that Leahy would do a lot more if he had the votes.

So, here's a really simple idea for you - HOW ABOUT WORK TO GET HIM THE FUCKING VOTES?

Common sense really isn't that common though, is it?

[Selatius]

29. The point of the movement is to end the war, not make compromises.

"We are not politicians, we are citizens. Let the politicians advocate half-way measures if they choose, but only after they have felt the full force of citizens who speak for what is right, not what is winnable in a shameful timorous Congress."

-- Howard Zinn

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

32. Tell me again how protesting Leahy gets 60 votes in the Senate?

If the citizens can't put 60 pro-peace votes in the Senate, then the citizens ARE making compromises.

[Selatius]

37. Maybe they're protesting him because he is their senator?

Maybe the reason the citizens can't get 60 pro-peace votes is because not enough seats were up for election back in November?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

40. So you just protest the nearest guy, irregardless of how he votes?

Do you punish your children for cleaning their room and getting As in school?

[Selatius]

48. I punish them as long as they fail to meet standards.

With respect to the House bill, you might want to read through the bill and see things that were inserted into the bill, such as a provision to try to privatize their oil. That's a bad enough a provision as it is.

http://uspolitics.about.com/b/a/208055.htm

Does that "fail to meet standards"? Now, would I protest Leahy? Probably not, but far be it from me to throw scorn on any fellow anti-war protesters, and far far be it from me to claim to speak for everybody if I said it "embarasses us all."

[Breeze54]

70. How are they 'punishing' him?

He wasn't even there!!! :rofl:

They're the one's that got arrested!!

[leftchick]

90. "irregardless"?

http://wsu.edu/~brians/errors/irregardless.html

It is difficult to take a point seriously when that "word" is used.

[Breeze54]

73. 1st vote was 48 to 50; 2nd was 50 to 48...

Protesting and speaking out works!

It's called "Democracy"!

Get used to it! ;)

[stirlingsliver]

54. "HOW ABOUT WORK TO GET HIM THE FUCKING VOTES?"

Funny, I thought the whole point of the protestors who were arrested was to get enough votes to end the war -- and end it NOW.

It would start with Leahy changing his vote to support an IMMEDIATE end to the war.

[Bill McBlueState]

94. change his vote?

The legislation was already passed; he can't change his vote.

[Mojorabbit]

24. I so totally disagree

and good on them for acting on their principles even if it is not yours. That is the great thing about this country, we don't all have to agree and can follow our own conscience.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

27. That's the problem - THEY ARE MY PRINCIPLES!

The only difference is that I know for a fact that Senator Leahy is on our side and that these protesters diminish the cause by exposing how little they know.

[EFerrari]

65. "by exposing how little they know"

You keep saying this phrase. I don't think it means what you think it means.

[treestar]

74. They don't diminish the cause

They even stengthen it, in that there is an element even more adamant about ending the war.

They give Leahy an excuse to be stricter in his demands in Congress.

Not everything has to be taken personally. This is one such thing. It's bigger than that. Chances are someone like Leahy understands.

[Breeze54]

69. Anything is possible.

[Captain Hilts]

7. Agreed. WHY aren't they protesting at the White House? nt

[Supersedeas]

60. Yep, sort of a Plame testimony code pink feel to it.

[EFerrari]

12. No, they don't embarass us all. n/t

[Selatius]

13. They embarass some, but not all. Certainly not me. n/t

[SusanaMontana41]

25. Their protests don't embarrass me, either

n/t

[stirlingsliver]

57. I'm Not Embarassed By These Actions

I'm not embarassed in the least by this actions.

In fact, I rather admire the courage it takes to speak the truth to power.

[shance]

17. It's idiotic and infantile to take a principled stand?

God help this country that if to excercise our rights as citizens has now become "infantile and idiotic".

What else is one to do, when our leaders are leading us off the cliff, and allowing our children to be sent off, killed, and/or irreversibly traumatized/disabled for a war profiteering adventure?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

19. It is when you protest the person most likely to help you in the first place.

In fact, he already is a leader in doing exactly what they want him to do. That certainly qualifies for moronic in my book. Or do you make it a habit to piss on the people that help you most?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

30. To answer the question you edited in...

How about protesting the people that won't vote for a tougher resolution? If you need a list, you can start with the roll call vote for cloture in the Senate on the non-binding resolution against the troop surge and you can use the roll call vote in the House on the same resolution.

Want to know something? LEAHY ISN'T ON THE LIST!

[bdamomma]

53. in other countries * and his cabal would have been long gone

we have to believe in power in numbers, and I support every dissenter out there. I only wish there were more.

[leftchick]

91. this reminds me...

I saw a bumper sticker just yesterday that rang true for me.... "we need a second party".

These compromise bills that enable more war for the OIL companies and other profiteers are infuriating. I give credit to these people who recognize what is really going on and put themselves out there to show it.

:applause:

[Ms. Clio]

22. speak for yourself, because I'm not embarrassed at all

They even tempered their criticism with praise in the attorney/Gonzales matter. I am sick to death of the same sanctimonious whiners who are always complaining about circular firing squads and supporting the Dems no matter what lameass crap they pull, yet are always the first to turn on the people who are really our own, citizens exercising their First Amendment rights.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

26. Speaking of sanctimonious...

No one's saying they don't have the right to be a complete fucking moron. I'd love to see where I said anything remotely close to that.

And you know what I'm sick to death of? The same self-righteous bullshit from people who demand ideological purity, consequences and real-life means of accomplishing said purity be damned. That problem could be solved by taking some of the energy put into protesting and using it to learn how the system works.

[Ms. Clio]

28. really, you have no fucking clue -- the depths of your cluelessness is 1 big fucking black hole

and again, you just demonstrate your own "ideological purity."

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

31. Oh really? And you do?

Then do this: Tell me what resolution YOU would pass and find 60 votes in the Senate and 218 in the House.

If you're so up on this whole thing, you should be able to tell me exactly who would and would not vote for the measure you propose. Here's betting you can't do it.

[Ms. Clio]

35. that's a red herring, and not what I care about

I am talking about citizens of conscience, not "fucking morons," exercising their First Amendment rights.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

38. No, it's not a red herring.

If these citizens had any conscience, they'd perform their duties as a citizen of the United States to educate themselves on the issues. There are two simple facts in play here:

1) The measure that was passed by the House and the Senate is the best possible way to get us out of Iraq because we cannot get the 60 Senate votes on anything more stringent.

2) Senator Leahy is a staunch anti-war advocate, and always has been.

[Ms. Clio]

43. again, you are assuming they are "not educated" and don't know what they are doing

Historically, the left has always pressured the Dems to do the right thing -- for example, MLK -- this is no different. I'm sure Mr. Leahy can take it.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

44. I'm not assuming anything.

They're protesting the wrong guy for the wrong reasons. There is no grey area there.

[Ms. Clio]

46. "There is no grey area here." Yeah okay because you know it all.

Good fucking god.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

47. But you can't refute any of the stated facts.

The votes are not there in the Senate and Leahy has always done everything in his power to oppose the war. Please, if you can tell me where the grey area is, be my fucking guest.

I'm not a know it all by any means. But I do know what I'm talking about on this issue. You've given me absolutely no factual reason to suggest that I don't.

[EFerrari]

52. Here's a fact: anti war demonstrators do not have the same

priorities as career politicians.

[BayCityProgressive]

33. here is my problem

this has nothing to do with ideological purity. A vast majority of Americans want out of iraq qithin the next year. I don't care if they give him a year's worth of money, but attach a BINDING resolution to begin withdrawal. Also, most Americans don't know or support things like the hidden hydrocarbon benchmark we placed in the bill, forcing iraqi's to sell their oil to US corporations. Why is this in the bill? This has nothing to do with ideological purity and everything to do with corruption and theft. i don't think provisions like this should be forced on the iraqi people. Haven't we done enough to them already???

[Breeze54]

77. Anti-war protestors are morons? Does that include The Boston Tea Party??

:shrug:

What was the last thing you did to stop this lie of an occupation? :shrug:

Protesting IS patriotic; as is dissent!

Democracy is NOT a spectator sport!

Carrying signs and marching is a grand old American tradition. So are office sit-ins!

Protesting in opposition to government policy dates back to the very beginning of this nation. (You should know!)

The Boston Tea Party was a protest committed against government policy.


Just like then, people today are exercising their dissent against government policy.

[LSK]

36. maybe these people should protest the CORRECT PEOPLE!??!

Like I have DONE!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x437182

[Ms. Clio]

39. who is ultimately more likely to respond to any pressure from antiwar activists?

people like Leahy, or people like Cheney?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

42. But Leahy has ALREADY RESPONDED!

Tell me what more he can actually do? The man can't walk on water you know.

[LSK]

45. Leahy needs no urging whatsoever

Vote Summary

Question: On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 )
Vote Number: 237 Vote Date: October 11, 2002, 12:50 AM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Joint Resolution Passed
Measure Number: H.J.Res. 114
Measure Title: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.


"Leahy (D-VT), Nay "

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

41. Exactly! And thank you so very much for your service to this country!

[Captain Hilts]

81. Vash, I agree completely with what you have said in your posts.

Being an impatient purist is just not an option.

[Breeze54]

71. I'm grateful that they're keeping this on fire! Not embarrassed at all!

Besides, the Occupation Project usually let's the rep
know, in advance, that they're 'coming to visit'. ;)
I doubt that this has ruffled Leahy's feathers!
He's a pretty tough cookie!

[treestar]

75. Right, and in fact, they give him ammunition to be tougher

He can say he has consituents that wanted something stronger than the bill in question. When a similar issue comes up again, he has this history.

If they weren't there, it would be one more reason the repukes could argue that the people support staying the course or some crap like that.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

79. Hear Fuckin Hear To That One Vash.

:applause:

[Bill McBlueState]

95. I agree

Thanks for standing up for common sense in this thread.

[kiteinthewind]

97. Absolutely NO embarrassment here! nt

[bdamomma]

11. Bless you Ms. Hayes

we can take a lesson from this woman, she has seen enough criminals and criminal activity in her day.

[Hardrada]

18. The point is to keep the pressure on

as was done in VN era until the war is over.

[BayCityProgressive]

20. I am in full solidarity with these people

we need to protest ALL congressmen until the war is ended no matter what party. Boo hoo the dems get protested...get over it. Too many of them are spineless jelly fish.

[Inuca]

16. Leahy is one of the best and smartest and toughest

Protest for what you believe in, I 100% agree. But don't waste your efforts, protest where protest is deserved. I agree with the comparison with the Obey incident somebody else made.

[EFerrari]

51. If he's that smart and that good and that tough

1) He understands what the anti war movement is doing

and

2) He can take it.

I don't see a down side here.

[Inuca]

61. I am sure he can take it

It's just a pity that efforts get wasted this way IMHO + they may convey the wrong message to some people.

[EFerrari]

63. It's not a waste for the general public to see this commitment level.

And "some people" will just have to deal with that commitment.

It's not like the Republics need an actual event to make up sound bites to use on the Democrats. And Democrats who do want to end the occupation and who don't want to strip mine Iraq can point to these demonstrators as support for their "reasonable" position. :)

[LSK]

34. Leahy??? PATRICK LEAHY??????

Are they lost?!?!??

:wtf:

[EFerrari]

50. As Vash points out above, he is on the committee the bill is passing

through. So, no, they aren't lost.

The idea is to hold EVERYBODY'S feet to the fire. This isn't personal.

[bdamomma]

55. these Senators got to know that we the people are tired of this

sh$t, so let them protest.

[EFerrari]

58. Barbara Lee says the anti war movement is helping end this war.

I trust Barbara Lee. :hi:

[bdamomma]

62. and apparently We the people shook these policitians up

in November 2006, cause they keep on mentioning it how the American spoke in Nov. 2006, so we have get out there and do it, and show our discontent.

[EFerrari]

64. Well, there is that, too. lol.

(Thanks, Mom.



:) )

[Puregonzo1188]

72. When's that picture from? I have a picture of the same guy!

[EFerrari]

76. January in DC. My mom went to every cool dressed up person

and got a picture them.

I hope I do that much when I'm 75!

lol

:hi:

[Puregonzo1188]

82. I have two of that guy both from an October 5th World Can't Wait protest

I did not see him in Janurary, but I saw him at the Pentagon. However, all three times I did see this guy:

http://shutter15.pictures.aol.com/data/pictures/04/00A/7D/A3/67/C4/3VRdlWpl602pBlpkno+F0b30n6RrFQUk0300.jpg

Did your mom get any pictures with him?

[Breeze54]

83. Was he with these guys I met in DC in 2005? lmao!

He was in NYC on the Iraq Invasion Anniversary last year! ;)

They must be getting frequent flier miles! :rofl:

OOps! Just noticed the 'face' is different. Oh well... lmao! ;)

[EFerrari]

88. Is it this guy?

[LSK]

56. and there are realities when working with a slim Majority in Congress

If it WASNT for the GOP and moderate Dinos, Leahy would be passing bills ending the war now. The reality is that these people exist and that is why we have bills such as this. What good is it to write a bill that will get 25 votes and go down in flames?

The pressure needs to be put on moderates and the GOP, not on people who didnt even vote for the war in the 1st place.

[EFerrari]

59. Of course. But those realities are the concern of politicians,

not mine. Politicians are risk adverse; they have to be.

I can't be. :)

[lovuian]

66. people are fed up and want out of the War NOW

their not fools they know Iran war is in the wings

Its only going to get worse

[Breeze54]

67. Your link is broken. Here's a new one. Different source

10 war protesters arrested

http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070404/NEWS03/704040374/-1/HSSPORTS

April 4, 2007

The Associated Press

BURLINGTON —

Ten people were arrested Tuesday at a war protest at the office of U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy,
police said. It was the third such incident in less than two weeks.

The protesters, unhappy about supplemental funding for the war in Iraq, refused to leave
when asked by Leahy's chief of staff and were taken into custody briefly before being
released, according to Deputy Police Chief Walter Decker.

They were not formally charged.

Chittenden County State's Attorney Thomas J. Donovan, Jr., said he would decide Wednesday
whether to file trespassing charges against the 10, whose names weren't immediately released.

"I'm going to talk with the police tomorrow morning," he said Tuesday.
"I will make a decision then.'

Leahy, D-Vt., wasn't at the office at the time.

On March 21, six people were arrested after occupying the district office of Rep. Peter Welch,
D-Vt., and refusing to leave when it closed. On March 27, eight were arrested in a similar
incident at the offices of U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. No charges were filed after those arrests.

[shance]

68. Thanks Breeze*

n/t

[Breeze54]

87. hey shance?

PM me....your profile is disabled.

[Vinca]

78. I'm puzzled about why activists would target Leahy. Anyone

with half a brain must understand the numbers game. They should be occupying the offices of Republicans . . . or Lieberbush. Unless there's a veto-proof majority, all of us who want the war to end are SOL.

[PuraVidaDreamin]

80. Good for them! Keep the pressure on EVERYONE!

Peace IN

[riverdeep]

84. People do realize that it's even not possible to leave iraq today?

If the order were given to leave Iraq today, it would take conservatively six months to safely pull out. There's a lot of equipment and troops, not to mention bases, which I don't think will ever be taken down. Protest the guy who's keeping them there against everybody's advice, including his father's.

[Breeze54]

86. All things are possible.

[EFerrari]

89. The Democrats' bill leaves the bases. n/t

[bvar22]

96. YES, it IS possible. The US "could" leave in a matter of days.

Please review the films of the US leaving VietNam.

I'm NOT recommending this type of departure, but every day we STAY in Iraq makes a VietNam style departure more likely.

[Swamp Rat]

85. We the People need to keep the pressure on EVERYONE!!!

I really like Leahy and think he is doing a fine job, and I have confidence he knows how to handle protesters appropriately and with dignity.

[Jcrowley]

98. Agree

THE SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING BILL
The Democratic leadership in the House claims the $125 billion supplemental is the way to end the war. Something passed in the Senate may include some of the same claims. Aside from setting a date for bringing home troops, the House version included a number of items many in the peace movement would ordinarily support – veterans’ health benefits, Katrina survivors’ assistance, children’s health insurance…

So if there’s a timeline, what’s the problem with the supplemental? Why shouldn’t peace activists support it?

Because it gives President Bush another $100 billion to continue the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. And it doesn’t end the occupation or prevent expansion of the war to Iran.



WHAT IT DOES
It calls for pulling out some troops from Iraq by August 2008
BUT –
It exempts whole categories of troops from the withdrawal
** Troops “training the Iraqi military” can stay – currently 6,000, perhaps as
many as 20,00 (no limit in the supplemental)
** Troops engaged in “special operations” can stay – the Marines say they want
20,000 for Anbar Province alone, perhaps as many as 40,000 for the whole country (no limit in the supplemental)
** Troops “protecting diplomatic enclaves” like the huge Green Zone and the US
Embassy, the largest in the world, and maybe including the numerous US bases established in Iraq, can stay – 20,000 is a conservative number (no limit in the supplemental)
That means Bush could keep unlimited numbers, perhaps 60,000 – 80,000 troops, permanently in Iraq – and still be in compliance with the bill.
And the bill does not require that the troops withdrawn from Iraq be sent home; they can be immediately deployed to Afghanistan, or to bases in surrounding Arab countries, or to ships in the Persian Gulf – or be used to attack Iran.

More:
http://www.ips-dc.org/comment/bennis/tp49opposingsupplemental.htm

[ClayZ]

92. I would like to see thousands more out protesting!

[mopinko]

93. don't think of them as protesters. think of them as

external spine reinforcement. it's what the Constitution recommends, ya know.