PDA

View Full Version : King George: Yelling at someone is a crime


jAZ
04-24-2006, 11:32 PM
Amazing... :shake:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/21/AR2006042101429.html

Falun Gong Activist Defiant After Arrest

By Karlyn Barker and Lena H. Sun
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, April 22, 2006; A05

The protester who disrupted a White House ceremony for Chinese President Hu Jintao remained defiant yesterday, even after prosecutors charged her with a federal crime punishable by up to six months in jail.

"It's not a crime but an act of civil disobedience," Wenyi Wang declared after she emerged from a hearing in U.S. District Court in Washington, drawing cheers from nearly three dozen fellow activists from Falun Gong, a religious sect that is suppressed in China.

Wang, 47, a doctor who lives in New York, got onto the White House lawn Thursday morning as a credentialed journalist for a newspaper associated with Falun Gong. She was arrested by the Secret Service after she began yelling from a media platform. The outburst interrupted Hu's remarks at the ceremony, attended by President Bush and other leaders, and created an embarrassing situation for the White House.

A judge released Wang on personal recognizance yesterday and, at the prosecution's request, ordered her to stay away from the White House while awaiting trial.

Thursday's disturbance lasted more than two minutes as Wang unfurled a yellow protest banner and shouted at Hu, and then Bush, in Chinese and English. The Secret Service said that she said things including, "Stop oppressing the Falun Gong," "Your time is running out" and "Anything you have done will come back to you in this lifetime." She also exclaimed: "President Bush, stop him from killing! President Bush, stop him from persecuting Falun Gong!"

Prosecutors maintained that the yelling at Hu was threatening and constituted a crime -- willfully intimidating, coercing, threatening and harassing a foreign official. Wang's attorney characterized it as free speech. Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson turned down a defense request to dismiss the case and set a follow-up hearing for May 3.

Chinese officials had warned the United States of the potential for protests during Hu's visit. And Wang herself had caused a commotion at least once before: She confronted former Chinese president Jiang Zemin in Malta nearly five years ago with complaints about the treatment of Falun Gong, according to press reports.

The White House had issued Wang a one-day press pass to cover the ceremony after she presented credentials as a reporter for the Epoch Times. Many of the newspaper's staff members, like Wang, are Falun Gong practitioners, according to a newspaper spokeswoman.

Falun Gong is a Buddhist-based spiritual movement with millions of members in China and elsewhere. It became the focus of controversy when it was banned by the Chinese government in 1999 after followers staged a series of peaceful protests in Beijing. Founded by a Chinese soldier in 1992, Falun Gong in Chinese means "Practice of the Wheel of Law." It blends meditation and martial arts.

Adherents say thousands of the group's followers have been imprisoned by the Chinese government. The Epoch Times recently published articles alleging the harvesting and sale of organs from still-living practitioners held in Chinese labor camps. In the past, the harvesting of body parts from executed prisoners has been widely alleged and detailed in official Chinese government newspapers. The Chinese government has called Falun Gong an "evil cult" and accused its leaders of trying to overthrow the ruling Communist Party.

Terri Wu, spokeswoman for the Epoch Times, said Wang has a medical degree and doctorate from the University of Chicago and has been working for the newspaper for six years, specializing in medical issues. The newspaper issued a statement saying that it did not know that Wang was planning the protest. The statement apologized to Bush and the White House -- but not to Hu.

Wang helped research the recent Epoch Times articles on organ harvesting and was "very overstressed," Wu said. When she saw Bush shake the hand of the Chinese leader, she felt obligated to speak out, the spokeswoman said.

A spokesman for the National Security Council, which accredited the foreign media representatives attending the event, said that the Epoch Times is a legitimate news organization and that its reporters had attended White House events previously.

"They had always comported themselves in a professional way," Frederick Jones said. "We would have no reason to not allow them entry."

During yesterday's court hearing, Assistant U.S. Attorney Angela George argued that Wang's statements were not protected by the First Amendment.

"She was yelling at the president," George said. "You can't walk into a theater and yell 'Fire!' The First Amendment does not permit her to engage in criminal conduct."

But Wang's defense attorney, John Bos, ridiculed the notion that her remarks were threats or that they constituted intimidation.

"There's no evidence that President Hu heard the statements and no evidence that the statements caused him to stop and look up," Bos said.

Before the Secret Service escorted Wang from the media platform, a cameraman pulled the banner from her hands and tried to quiet her by placing his hands on her mouth. Bos said that, rather than Wang's shouts, could have caused Hu to pause in his remarks.

Wang did not address the court yesterday and would not answer questions from reporters after the hearing. Instead, she read a statement praising Falun Gong and condemning the Chinese government.

"I've devoted much of my time trying to stop the persecution of Falun Gong in China, especially the harvesting of organs," she said.

irishjayhawk
04-24-2006, 11:41 PM
Now the 1st Amendment doesn't apply when you yell at a government official. Namely, the President?

What's next?

Chiefs Express
04-24-2006, 11:53 PM
Now the 1st Amendment doesn't apply when you yell at a government official. Namely, the President?

What's next?

Why don't you go to DC and prove that the story is wrong. Wait for the president to speak and start yelling to interrupt him.

Just for the record, she did not yell while the president was talking she was yelling at the other president Hu.

Next is when the liberals get their story correct.

jAZ
04-24-2006, 11:59 PM
Why don't you go to DC and prove that the story is wrong. Wait for the president to speak and start yelling to interrupt him.

Just for the record, she did not yell while the president was talking she was yelling at the other president Hu.

Next is when the liberals get their story correct.
Do you ever make any sense?

jAZ
04-24-2006, 11:59 PM
http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/003160.html

"Wankgers": Why are Michelle Malkin and the rest of the right silent on the arrest of their "hero," Wenyi Wang?

The case of Wenyi Wang -- the Falun Gong practioner arrested last Thursday for heckling Chinese president Hu Jingtao on the White House lawn -- has been one of those rare issues that has cut across the Great Blogospheric Divide. Some on the right were quick to hail the brave critic of a totalitarian and nominally Communist regime, while some of us on the left were angered by her ensuing arrest, just seconds after a plea from Bush for greater free speech and religious tolerance. Many bloggers seemed so confused by the cross-currents they ignored it altogether.

Right now, if you do a Google search on "Wenyi Wang," our post denouncing the move to charge the 47-year-old doctor with a seldom-if-ever used federal offense of "intimidating a foreign official" is the No. 2 item. What's No. 1? This post from conservative icon Michelle Malkin: "WENYI WANG ROCKS."

There's not a lot of original content here -- links to an Investor's Business Daily editorial praising Wang, and to a favorable New York Daily News profile of the mother of two. But it's clear that Malkin considers Wang as hero -- here's her kicker.

A remarkable woman. Be proud of this bold American, not sorry.

Reader Tim e-mails: "She should have more coverage than Cindy Sheehan, but she won't because Hu is viewed as better than Bush."

Huh? Meanwhile, Malkin seems blissfully unaware that "this bold American" is in fact a Chinese immigrant who has not won her citizenship yet -- and likely never will now that the administration of her president, George W. Bush, has decided to charge her with a violation of a federal law.

Indeed, after waxing so poetically about how Wenyi Wang "rocks," there has nary a word about the Justice Department prosecution. True, a person who disrupts a public ceremony by shouting, as Wang did, should probably expect a misdemeanor local disorderly conduct rap.

But to charge this woman with a more serious federal crime -- for daring to criticize a foreign despot who has tortured and killed members of her sect -- sends just one more chilling message about the practice of free speech in 21st Century America. It's a message that bloggers on the right are blissfully ignoring.

Glenn Reynolds links to "a report that says China censored CNN's coverage of the Falun Gong protestor -- ironic since he pretty much has done the same thing.

Here's Kathryn Jean Lopez on the Corner:

Of course, as embarrassing as this is for the White House, it's worth bearing in mind that's probably closer than she'd ever get to saying her piece to the Chinese president and the consequences for her are a lot more forgiving here than if she were there and tried to do such a thing.

That's true -- we're not going to harvest her organs or anything. Still, you can't go around hailing a woman's right to free speech and then ignoring the government's efforts to suppress it. Well, on second thought, we guess you can, if your name is Michelle Malkin.

Why don't you email Michelle and ask her when her follow-up post on how "GEORGE W. BUSH DOESN'T ROCK" is coming? Her email is writemalkin@gmail.com.

Posted on April 24, 2006 10:33 PM

Chiefs Express
04-25-2006, 12:05 AM
Do you ever make any sense?

What's wrong jaz, you don't remember the speech. I thought all of the asshole liberals were watching so they could find something else to say about Bush.

The lady in question was yelling at President Hu.

You are not only an asshole you are a stupid asshole.

jAZ
04-25-2006, 12:13 AM
What's wrong jaz, you don't remember the speech. I thought all of the asshole liberals were watching so they could find something else to say about Bush.

The lady in question was yelling at President Hu.

You are not only an asshole you are a stupid asshole.
Say it... say it... you know you want to... just say it.

jAZ - 4???
CE - 0???

Make it happen Tom, bring'er home!

go bowe
04-25-2006, 12:26 AM
it's not nice to gloat, jazerino...

Chiefs Express
04-25-2006, 12:59 AM
Say it... say it... you know you want to... just say it.

jAZ - 4???
CE - 0???

Make it happen Tom, bring'er home!

It's nice that you are keeping score, but you have failed to give me points for getting an asshole to respond and waste his time.

jaz - 4
CE - 25 (just an estimate, all of your posts are a waste of someone's time)

Chiefs Express
04-25-2006, 01:00 AM
Say it... say it... you know you want to... just say it.

jAZ - 4???
CE - 0???

Make it happen Tom, bring'er home!

Ok, I'll say it, you're stupid and an asshole.

Nothing like starting a game and not telling anyone wtf you are doing....oh, wait, you've never known wtf you are doing.

Chiefs Express
04-25-2006, 01:00 AM
it's not nice to gloat, jazerino...

stupid is as stupid does, I just didn't know that jaz's stupidity ran over into your pie hole.

Ultra Peanut
04-25-2006, 01:16 AM
I had more sympathy for her before learning she was tied with FLG.

I still don't approve of arresting her, but Falun Gong is ****ed up.

"She was yelling at the president," George said. "You can't walk into a theater and yell 'Fire!' The First Amendment does not permit her to engage in criminal conduct."wtf

oldandslow
04-25-2006, 08:23 AM
There was no theatre, there was no fire.

This is an abridgement of 1st amendment rights. For neocons to argue otherwise truly illustrates just how hypocritical they are.

Mr. Kotter
04-25-2006, 08:31 AM
There was no theatre, there was no fire.

This is an abridgement of 1st amendment rights....You mean, like during the late 90s when the Clinton administration detained and interrogated a protestor three days for yelling, "you suck!" at Clinton during a jog on the beach? :shrug:

CHIEF4EVER
04-25-2006, 08:39 AM
You mean, like during the late 90s when the Clinton administration detained and interrogated a protestor three days for yelling, "you suck!" at Clinton during a jog on the beach? :shrug:

Shhhhhhhhhhh......you can't say that. If a Lib does it it is OK. Don't you know that?

jspchief
04-25-2006, 08:40 AM
I'll agree that this appears to be stifling her first amendment rights. It sounds like they're reaching more than a little bit to determine it was a "threat".

However, I have to question the title of this thread. How the hell does "King George" get the flack for this? Unless you're insinuating that he coerced the prosecutor's office to make an arrest they didn't want to make.

Sully
04-25-2006, 08:44 AM
Must've been a "free speech" zone.

Kraut
04-25-2006, 08:45 AM
First off, having this woman arrested is out of line. I am a conservative with no loyalty to the Republicans. Our government needs to wake up and accecpt that the Chinese government is corrupt and brutal. Those turds in Washington need to praise her for standing up and letting everybody know what is going on inside China. They are not our friends(The government of China), our government needs to accept that. Thhis arrest is one big joke !!!

Radar Chief
04-25-2006, 08:52 AM
I'll agree that this appears to be stifling her first amendment rights. It sounds like they're reaching more than a little bit to determine it was a "threat".

However, I have to question the title of this thread. How the hell does "King George" get the flack for this? Unless you're insinuating that he coerced the prosecutor's office to make an arrest they didn't want to make.

jAZ got an infected hangnail the other day and it was teh Debil’s fault also.
What are you, new? ;)

Saulbadguy
04-25-2006, 08:55 AM
Shouldn't have been arrested, but definately removed from the premises, IMO. People who yell like that are usually crazy and bound to do something foolish, or dangerous.

CHIEF4EVER
04-25-2006, 08:56 AM
jAZ got an infected hangnail the other day and it was teh Debil’s fault also.
What are you, new? ;)

You heard that too? You know, of course, that if Dubya had supported Free Health Care it would never have gotten infected. :harumph:












ROFL

Kraut
04-25-2006, 09:05 AM
Shouldn't have been arrested, but definately removed from the premises, IMO. People who yell like that are usually crazy and bound to do something foolish, or dangerous.
Yes you might be right, she may have been dangerous. BUt why the big fuss over what she was saying. What is it that Washington is trying to hide by making this story into somethng bigger then it is?

jAZ
04-25-2006, 09:08 AM
You mean, like during the late 90s when the Clinton administration detained and interrogated a protestor three days for yelling, "you suck!" at Clinton during a jog on the beach? :shrug:
Linky link?

jiveturkey
04-25-2006, 09:19 AM
You mean, like during the late 90s when the Clinton administration detained and interrogated a protestor three days for yelling, "you suck!" at Clinton during a jog on the beach? :shrug:Same thing IMO. Both are an over reach of power.

Mr. Kotter
04-25-2006, 09:51 AM
Linky link?


http://www.injusticeline.com/freespch.html



http://www.justicejunction.com/government_clinton_rejects_freedom_of_speech.htm

patteeu
04-25-2006, 10:02 AM
http://www.injusticeline.com/freespch.html



http://www.justicejunction.com/government_clinton_rejects_freedom_of_speech.htm

King Bill! :eek: ROFL

As usual, Bush is being accused of uniquely offending sensibilities for actions that are typical for any administration.

Mr. Kotter
04-25-2006, 10:09 AM
King Bill! :eek: ROFL

As usual, Bush is being accused of uniquely offending sensibilities for actions that are typical for any administration.

Exactly. Some of us are old enough to remember, and non-partisan enough to be fair, not to demagogue the issue and or to pretend one party or the other is any more guilty of hypocrisy than the other.

oldandslow
04-25-2006, 10:16 AM
Kotter:

Both are wrong. I am no fan of Clinton either. I did not vote for him in 96.

That does not make the actions here, correct.

You tend to always justify Bush's actions by pointing to Clinton - Why?

Ultra Peanut
04-25-2006, 10:18 AM
Kotter:

Both are wrong. I am no fan of Clinton either. I did not vote for him in 96.

That does not make the actions here, correct.

You tend to always justify Bush's actions by pointing to Clinton - Why?Because Bush is a turd, and Clinton was a turd with a shiny hat.

Mr. Kotter
04-25-2006, 10:21 AM
Kotter:

Both are wrong. I am no fan of Clinton either. I did not vote for him in 96.

That does not make the actions here, correct.

You tend to always justify Bush's actions by pointing to Clinton - Why?
Because I despise hypocrisy. And I've become numb to politically motivated "outrages" that are not illegal, and more often than not quickly forgotten. To me, politically motivated partisan attacks over something your side has been guilty of all too often destroys one's credibility.

Baby Lee
04-25-2006, 10:30 AM
You tend to always justify Bush's actions by pointing to Clinton - Why?
Because we have 8 years in the past 26 by which to gauge the Democrat response to 'scandal' by their leader.
And the difference in response when 'their' guy is in charge, as compared to any other time, is too apt not to remark on.

Then again, I've spent way too much time pondering whether voting Democrat, ANY Democrat for Prez is worth it, for nothing more than the simple prospect of having a little peace and quiet from the peanut gallery. ;)

oldandslow
04-25-2006, 10:37 AM
Because I despise hypocrisy.

Oh, I see....

Clinton's BJ is in the same league as "being the party of small govt" and then expanding govt and raising the national debt more than any administration in history.

Or linking AQ with Hussein when that linkage was tenuous at best.

or saying we shouldn't be in the business of nation building and then go on the largest nation building excursion in history.

or claiming that a pre-emptive war is historically US policy...

Glad you could clear that up for me.

jspchief
04-25-2006, 10:43 AM
Yes you might be right, she may have been dangerous. BUt why the big fuss over what she was saying. What is it that Washington is trying to hide by making this story into somethng bigger then it is?I don't think it's neccessarily about trying to hide what she was saying.

I think the average American understands that there are a lot of bad things that happen in China. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't take action to improve diplomatic relations. We can't expect them to change overnight.

We also have to respect the people that we have in this country as diplomatic guests. I don't think it's unreasonable to not want some loon screaming protests in the middle of an official ceremony.

Does she have the right to do it? Yes. Does the WH have the right to remove her from the premises for it? Yes. Is arresting her a violation of her freedom of speech? Yea, it sounds like it to me.

Baby Lee
04-25-2006, 10:46 AM
Oh, I see....

Clinton's BJ is in the same league as
I'm confused.
So that lady was arrested in 1996 for telling Clinton he sucked and kids died due to his foreign policy, . . . because he was going to get a BJ in the future? :spock:

Radar Chief
04-25-2006, 10:50 AM
Oh, I see....

Clinton's BJ is in the same league as "being the party of small govt" and then expanding govt and raising the national debt more than any administration in history.

Or linking AQ with Hussein when that linkage was tenuous at best.

or saying we shouldn't be in the business of nation building and then go on the largest nation building excursion in history.

or claiming that a pre-emptive war is historically US policy...

Glad you could clear that up for me.

Or ask’n a question then deflect’n with half-truths when the question is answered.
Congratulations, Donald, you’ve got the “poor innocent victim of vast conspiracies” act down. :thumb:

Mr. Kotter
04-25-2006, 10:50 AM
Oh, I see....

Clinton's BJ is in the same league as "being the party of small govt" and then expanding govt and raising the national debt more than any administration in history.

Or linking AQ with Hussein when that linkage was tenuous at best.

or saying we shouldn't be in the business of nation building and then go on the largest nation building excursion in history.

or claiming that a pre-emptive war is historically US policy...

Glad you could clear that up for me.I can get past the BJ; it was the perjury and obstruction that disturbed me much more. FTR, while I supported impeachment, I did not support removal from office in the end.

The "hypocrisy" you are suggesting are reasonable differences of opinion to my way of thinking, or (at worst) mere political posturing and waffling; nothing new or surprising about any of that....

Small government? Hypocrisy? Sure. I would agree. However, 9/11, War in Iraq, and continuing "champagne taste on a beer budget (Prescription drug benefits, eg)" that American citizens continue to demand of their politicians is as much or more to blame for our fiscal condition than the politicians themselves. They are merely pandering.

You remember Walter Mondale? "Whoever wins this election will have to raise your taxes over the next four years. The difference between the President (Reagan) and I is he won't tell you; but I just did." How many states did he win in 1984? :)

Will you support the next major political party candidate to make that promise....because he's "courageous" and "fiscally responsible".....for not "mortgaging our children's' futures"? Will you? I'd like to be able to, but you know what? He/she won't win. Not in the current political climate.

Brock
04-25-2006, 11:17 AM
How are those impeachment proceedings going.....

Kraut
04-25-2006, 12:25 PM
I don't think it's neccessarily about trying to hide what she was saying.

I think the average American understands that there are a lot of bad things that happen in China. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't take action to improve diplomatic relations. We can't expect them to change overnight.

We also have to respect the people that we have in this country as diplomatic guests. I don't think it's unreasonable to not want some loon screaming protests in the middle of an official ceremony.

Does she have the right to do it? Yes. Does the WH have the right to remove her from the premises for it? Yes. Is arresting her a violation of her freedom of speech? Yea, it sounds like it to me.
I guess my anger has its roots in the fact that she should not have been arrested. I agree the WH had the right to throw her out. I also get angry seeing our government over and over again getting into bed with a brutal regime. I know at this point we have to in regards to China, but I still do not have to like it. Hey from now on just call me Pat Buchanan :) It seems he is the only one I can agree with. The other person I agree with I won't mention :p

Mr. Kotter
04-26-2006, 07:58 AM
Linky link?
http://www.injusticeline.com/freespch.html



http://www.justicejunction.com/government_clinton_rejects_freedom_of_speech.htmPoor wittle jAZZy-wAZZy asks for winky-winks/linky-links......and doesn't have anything to say about them? My, what a surprise. ;)

Lurch
07-05-2006, 02:04 PM
Yup, a definite boner for GW.