3 thoughts on “Video: Anti-War Minister Is Attacked, Gets Leg Broken for Trying to Enter Petraeus Hearing”

  1. “Is there any reason this shouldn’t be the top story on all the major networks?”

    I don’t follow your logic on this one, Ed. Its not clear from the video why he was stopped, but perhaps it was due to the button which the link mentions. Maybe there is some draconia ‘no buttons’ policy for the hearings, maybe there is not. Or maybe the officer that stoped him had absolutely no reason to stop him at all. When they actually tackle him, he makes a move to get back to the door and they forcibly stop him.

    But, I don’t think there is a story here. Officers make mistakes all the time and I don’t think it can be taken any farther then that. The worst factual headline here would be ‘Capital Officer Breaks Leg of Citizen After Officer Improperly removes Citizen from Line’. Pretty bad, but one guy’s error.

    I’m sure this will go to trial at some point – I’d love to hear why they guy was stopped in the first place.

  2. I guess I don’t think it would be OK for the police to break a man’s leg for cutting in line even if that was true.

    If it doesn’t seem plausible he was singled out for his button, check this shit out.


    This is systematic. Dissent is becoming, de facto if not officially, a crime in the united states.

    Here it got a man’s leg broken.

    That may be “one guy’s error” but is it not obvious it’s part of a systematic silencing of dissent?

    If it turns out it can’t be proven to be about the button, is that going to stop the next protestor from thinking twice about what’s going to happen to him if somebody doesn’t like his button?


  3. OK – now I think we’re to the heart of it. Your post said essentially, ‘This is headline news.’ In isolation this is certainly news, but not a major event. So, I assumed you were implying this event is the result of something larger (you were).

    The systemic-ness of this event is where we disagree. From the video, its not clear why this guy is prevented from entering. I listened to the hearings and there were people with signs. I can’t say that they had the signs visible when they came in, only that they had the chance to show them during the hearing. The NPR guy commented on the signs when someone would shout something, hold up the sign, and then be removed from the room. Whether or not these people should be removed in this way is a separate issue (at some point a committee must be allowed to get something done), but I guess my point is that it is clear that people of opposing views were able to get in and that filtering process for entering the room was not so draconian as to prevent people from getting in with signs (though perhaps hidden).

    While its not clear from the video why he was stopped, what follows is pretty clear. Its starts out as a verbal disagreement during which the guards gather in force. At some point, they begin to herd the man away from the entrance. When he realizes he is not getting his way, he makes an attempt to go for the door. To the guards who’s full-time job is to use everything including deadly force to ensure the safety of our elected representatives, this has got to be equivalent of someone reaching inside their jacket. They tackle him and in the process break his leg. When you’re pulled over for a ticket (right or wrong), you take a hugh risk by suddenly reaching under your seat – I’d put this guys move in the same category.

    Further, as suspicious of the Bush administration as I am, I don’t know who would set the rules and policies for who enters congressional committee hearings. There is a Democratic majority, so wouldn’t the Democrats be in charge of some sort of capitol security committee? Perhaps not, I just don’t know.

    I find the ACLU article you linked to in the previous comment much more persuasive on the systemic point – If someone has no weapons, why should they be stopped for wearing a tee-shirt with an anti-Bush message? Especially in a public type event. That seems to me to be quite a flagrant abuse.

Comments are closed.