It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Pentagon Anti-War Protest Brings 51 Arrests

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 03:24 AM
Marking the third anniversary of the U.S. occupation of Iraq, anti-war protesters demonstrated at the Pentagon Tuesday. Authorities incarcerated fifty-one demonstrators. Cindy Sheehan, known for her vigil outside the Crawford Ranch of President Bush, made an appearance. However, Ms. Sheehan did not get arrested along with the others.

The unfolding event is described below:
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Fifty-one protesters were arrested at the Pentagon on the third anniversary of the US-led invasion of Iraq, for refusing to stay behind a barrier, a Defense Department official said.

"They were told the only criteria for arrest was to cross the fence line," Pentagon public affairs officer Tracy O'Grady-Walsh told AFP.A hundred protesters entered the Pentagon parking lot and were told where they could stand. "Of the 100, 51 crossed the fence line and were arrested."

Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq who previously camped outside President George W. Bush's Texas vacation ranch, was among the protesters but was not arrested.

The protesters had previously arranged with the Pentagon their approach to the Pentagon parking lot and police told them to stay within the fenced-in area, O'Grady-Walsh said.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

The actions of the protesters contribute to the relevancy of the right to dissent. Although the action of protesting is often sensationalized, this story contributes to the societal unrest brought about by the second Iraq War. The main question posed by this article is how far does the action of "redressing grievances" go. Even more so, will government listen to the will of the people? However, one cannot forget that the behavior of public protest connects with a planned televised event glamorized by the media.

[edit on 21-3-2006 by ceci2006]

[edit on 21-3-2006 by ceci2006]

[edit on 26-3-2006 by asala]

posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 10:59 AM
This is a good sign actually...
a BAD sign would be if they rounded up 51 (or more) protesters for doing nothing wrong...

They knew the rules, and chose to break them...

anyone surprised by this?
I am... I thought the pentagon wouldn't allow protestors no matter what concessions were made..

vigilant, but not worried about this...

posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 11:47 AM
In this case, i have to say those arrested deserved it.

They crossed the barrier. Its really a no brainer.

posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 09:26 PM
dg? Is this really you? *passes out*

*coming back around* You're agreeing with these protesters arrests just stuns me and you're right. They knew the confines and chose not to observe them. It's an American right to voice an opinion and protest any government actions but to become unruly and have blatant disrespect for rules is simply uncalled for.

Hey. You're OK.

[edit on 21/3/06 by Intelearthling]

posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 10:48 PM
i have to call a spade a spade.

They were told not to cross the line. They did cross the line. If they hadnt crossed, they wouldnt have been arrested.

Its really very simple.

Love you too, Interearthling

posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 12:24 AM
Wait, the article says they agreed to certain borders, but then they violated those borders. Why the hell did they agree to those borders in the first place then?

posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 02:43 AM
First of all, let me say how suprised I was that anyone was allowed that close to the Pentagon. I thought that along with the White House, the Pentagon would also have its barriers barring passers-by. I was also shocked that the authorities interviewed had a "so-so" attitude about the protesters being there--knowing that it was a "planned" event.

About breaking the barriers, I could say that it was because of a "mob mentality". But, I agree with all of you. The protesters had a right to be there if they employed their dissent peacefully. But all bets were off when they went past the barriers. They knew the rules and yet they broke them.

However, it still displays the fact that the spirit of dissent is alive and well with all the protests going on.

posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 10:40 PM
This whole topic reminds me of a protest I organized outside of Bohemian Grove during the encampment. We set up a meeting with the police, out of courtesy. We were told we had to have a permit for a "parade", which would have cost $400, which we didn't have. The police and the Chamber of Commerce that was also there, bullied us, threatened us, wouldn't hear us, talked over us, and in general were extremely rude. Why? Well they were mostly Republicans and also feared the crowd would shut down their businesses, although this hadn't happened in the 25 years that the protest had been going on, and if anything ALWAYS brought in customers that wouldn't have been there otherwise. THe cops and Chamber of Commerce managed to get a very nasty article full of lies about us into the papers.

My point about all of this is that it is standard Operating Procedure for the cops to try all of the above tactics.

We have freedom of speech in this country - not just in designated CAGES, but certainly on the steps of the Capital, the Pentagon, and all other public buildings which in reality belong to us, The People.
(Quietly steps down off of soapbox.)


new topics

top topics


log in