Five House members arrested in Darfur rally

April 28, 2006 2:28 PM

Five Democratic House members arrested in today's Darfur rally. Another large protest in the capital is set for this Sunday. DCist.
posted by borkingchikapa (57 comments total)

"Get a brain, Moran!" There, it's out of the way.

As for the arrests, good. The more attention brought to this the better.
posted by djeo at 2:33 PM on April 28, 2006

was Cynthia McKinney there?
posted by delmoi at 2:35 PM on April 28, 2006

What I want to know about this is, what constitutes "unlawful assembly"?
posted by borkingchikapa at 2:38 PM on April 28, 2006

What the Christ, Republic?
posted by boo_radley at 2:40 PM on April 28, 2006

borkingchikapa, I was wondering the exact same thing.
posted by knave at 2:42 PM on April 28, 2006

what constitutes "unlawful assembly"?

You can be darned sure that the members of congress knew exactly what constitutes it, and did it intentionally, while being very careful not to go any farther than what would get them arrested for the bare minimum violation.

And you can also be sure that the members of congress will experience far fewer negative repercussions as a result of the arrest than any non-elite arrestees.

That said, it's a clever way to get publicity and to convince people that they're sincere.
posted by JekPorkins at 3:09 PM on April 28, 2006

Wait, okay. Wikipedia says "Unlawful assembly is a legal term to describe a group of people with the mutual intent of deliberate disturbance of the peace. If the group are about to start the act of disturbance, it is termed a rout, if the disturbance is commenced, it is then termed a riot."

Are they seriously trying to claim that fifty people, including five members of government, were rioting?
posted by borkingchikapa at 3:10 PM on April 28, 2006

The arrests were expected.

Tresspassing probably.
posted by pwedza at 3:11 PM on April 28, 2006

what constitutes "unlawful assembly"?

Any time 5 Democratic lawmakers come together without Republicans to supervise. Haven't you read the latest PatRiot Act?
posted by wendell at 3:12 PM on April 28, 2006

Yay Sheila Jackson Lee! H-town represent!
posted by unknowncommand at 3:14 PM on April 28, 2006

Rather than relying on Wikipedia, here's the actual DC statute:

DC Code § 22-1307. Unlawful assembly; profane and indecent language.

It shall not be lawful for any person or persons within the District of Columbia to congregate and assemble in any street, avenue, alley, road, or highway, or in or around any public building or inclosure, or any park or reservation, or at the entrance of any private building or inclosure, and engage in loud and boisterous talking or other disorderly conduct, or to insult or make rude or obscene gestures or comments or observations on persons passing by, or in their hearing, or to crowd, obstruct, or incommode, the free use of any such street, avenue, alley, road, highway, or any of the foot pavements thereof, or the free entrance into any public or private building or inclosure; it shall not be lawful for any person or persons to curse, swear, or make use of any profane language or indecent or obscene words, or engage in any disorderly conduct in any street, avenue, alley, road, highway, public park or inclosure, public building, church, or assembly room, or in any other public place, or in any place wherefrom the same may be heard in any street, avenue, alley, road, highway, public park or inclosure, or other building, or in any premises other than those where the offense was committed, under a penalty of not more than $250 or imprisonment for not more than 90 days, or both for each and every such offense.
posted by JekPorkins at 3:22 PM on April 28, 2006

any park or reservation

Enforceable on the National Mall?
posted by pwedza at 3:29 PM on April 28, 2006

Speaking of arrests - here we go again --

Limbaugh arrested on drug charges.
posted by ericb at 3:33 PM on April 28, 2006

That DC law seems unconstitutional. You can have reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and manner of speech, as long as the restrictions are content neutral (meaning that it applies equally to everyone, not just a specific viewpoint). That law seems to extend far too much because the speech it is limiting is not categorically unprotected by the First Amendment and there is no time limitation at all.

pwedza - The National Mall is federal land (under the auspices of the Department of Interior), so would be subject to federal law, rather than DC law. I could be wrong about that, so someone correct me if I am.
posted by Falconetti at 3:47 PM on April 28, 2006

Falconetti, the statute expressly refers to "rude or obscene" speech & conduct, which (obscenity, anyway) is not protected under the 1st amendment.

It's certainly very broad, maybe overly so, but being a DC statute, I'm pretty sure it'll eventually have its chance for constitutional review if there's really a problem.

And the statute says that conduct can be a violation even if it's not done in one of the public fora listed, so long as the conduct occurs "in any place wherefrom the same may be heard . . ." In other words, it doesn't matter if it's on Federal property, if the DC cop driving by on the street can hear it.
posted by JekPorkins at 3:53 PM on April 28, 2006

My God, members of our government doing something that I'm proud of? Can it be true?

Ericb-- if I had to see Limbaugh's face in the mirror, or sleep with Daryn Kagin, I'd probably want pain pills too.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 3:54 PM on April 28, 2006

It's worth pointing out that Tom Lantos -- one of the arrested -- is hardly a stereotypical raving liberal.

He's the ranking Democrat on the House International Relations Committee, and a Holocaust survivor. The guy has earned a bit of gravitas.
posted by insomnia_lj at 3:57 PM on April 28, 2006

That said, I can't believe the name of the husbands that his two daugters married...

One is named Timber Dick.

The other is named... Dick Swett.
posted by insomnia_lj at 4:00 PM on April 28, 2006

And you can also be sure that the members of congress will experience far fewer negative repercussions as a result of the arrest than any non-elite arrestees.

People get arrested like this in DC all the time, and there aren't generally any serious repercussions beyond spending the rest of the day in jail. It's not uncommon for police in DC to sweep up anyone in the area whether they're actually protesting or not.

Are they seriously trying to claim that fifty people, including five members of government, were rioting?

Presumably, they were blocking the entrance to the Sudanese embassy.
posted by me & my monkey at 4:04 PM on April 28, 2006

My God, members of our government doing something that I'm proud of? Can it be true?

That was my reaction. I really *didn't* believe it at first.... and I'm pleased as punch that it's true. Go House! *breaks out pompoms*
posted by WidgetAlley at 4:15 PM on April 28, 2006

What these five people did is courageous, but not a huge risk. Any publicity from this will be positive. Most all of my friends have been arrested at protests, as have I, and the charges are almost always dropped before you go to court. Tom Lantos not only has gravitas, from what I understand he is extremely well liked by his collegues. And even if he wasn't, can you imagine the fallout from fining an 80 year old holocaust survivor?

I am incredibly proud of these five. Prominent members of both parties have condemned the situation in Darfur, but the matter has been allowed to fade into the background. It would be great if more law makers pushed the issue.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 4:16 PM on April 28, 2006

JekPorkins: Falconetti, the statute expressly refers to "rude or obscene" speech & conduct, which (obscenity, anyway) is not protected under the 1st amendment.

It doesn't expressly refer just to "rude or obscene" speech, however:

and engage in loud and boisterous talking or other disorderly conduct, or to insult or make rude or obscene gestures or comments

Hmm. Is "loud and boisterous" protected under the 1st amendment? Better keep those protest songs to a reasonable volume from now on ... :)
posted by kaemaril at 4:19 PM on April 28, 2006

The arrests were expected, according to The Associated Press. Lantos' office issued a news release about them in advance.

Ha!
posted by smackfu at 4:20 PM on April 28, 2006

What I'm left wonder is - with the advent of "free speech pens" and the like - what publicity type arrest implies more broadly for peaceful protest.

For example, will cops later think: "well, we arrested Congressman ........ for it so why not this guy."
posted by pwedza at 4:27 PM on April 28, 2006

It's something. Not enough, but something. And a bit more helpful than a Republican $100 gasoline credit.
posted by bardic at 4:37 PM on April 28, 2006

In order to get arrested at a protest, you need to want to get arrested. Well, at least before W. I am certain that these 5 went with that as a goal.

Isn't that sort of the point of protesting? You're not really doing it right if the man doesn't haul you in.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 4:43 PM on April 28, 2006

But you're missing the point gesamtkunstwerk--Democrats are once again playing politics. George Bush dressing up in a flightsuit was helping win the war on terror.
posted by bardic at 4:45 PM on April 28, 2006

Yeah, I think the "unlawful assembly" is due to the fact that this happened at an embassy, which, I believe, is technically foreign soil and thus subject to foreign law.

I'm glad that people, and politicains too, are finally taking a stand about this, no matter how token that stand may be.
posted by lekvar at 4:52 PM on April 28, 2006

What we really need is Sen. Stabenow's proposed $500 gasoline credit. (b/c democrats care about us 5x as much as republicans do).

And "loud and boisterous" is a manner restriction, as is a prohibition on "disorderly conduct."

I don't think the fact that they clearly knew they would be arrested minimizes the message -- Rosa Parks knew what would happen to her, too, but that didn't make her symbolic gesture any less effective. (not that I think this is anywhere near as significant as Parks - it's just an example.)

But they should have got at least 1 republican to do it with them. A bipartisan message is far stronger than one that appears to be purely a partisan political move. At least they had some non-crazies in the group, though.
posted by JekPorkins at 4:53 PM on April 28, 2006

Clooney on Darfur, just back from Africa.

I like the fact that he knows enough about "the game" to not make himself too easy a target like his fellow celebrities. Good on him too.
posted by bardic at 4:55 PM on April 28, 2006

why is it playing politics to stand up for your beliefs (i.e. getting attention for an important issue)? I believe it's called "civil disobedience", no?

Good for them for getting arrested; it's a shame that more Democrats don't stand up for their beliefs more often...
posted by rmm at 4:56 PM on April 28, 2006

JekPorkins, in all sincerity I'm not aware of a single Republican congressperson who's had all that much to say on the issue. I could be wrong, obviously.
posted by bardic at 4:56 PM on April 28, 2006

Alright, let's issue-spot this statute (outlining is mine):

I) It shall not be lawful for any person or persons within the District of Columbia to
1)congregate and assemble in any street, avenue, alley, road, or highway, or in or around any public building or inclosure, or any park or reservation, or at the entrance of any private building or inclosure, and
2) A) engage in loud and boisterous talking or other disorderly conduct, or
B) to insult or make rude or obscene gestures or comments or observations on persons passing by, or in their hearing, or
C) to crowd, obstruct, or incommode, the free use of any such street, avenue, alley, road, highway, or any of the foot pavements thereof, or the free entrance into any public or private building or inclosure;
II)
1) it shall not be lawful for any person or persons to curse, swear, or make use of any profane language or indecent or obscene words, or
2) engage in any disorderly conduct in any street, avenue, alley, road, highway, public park or inclosure, public building, church, or assembly room, or in any other public place, or in any place wherefrom the same may be heard in any street, avenue, alley, road, highway, public park or inclosure, or other building, or in any premises other than those where the offense was committed,
III) under a penalty of not more than $250 or imprisonment for not more than 90 days, or both for each and every such offense.

I-2-A: seems to affect only the manner of speech,
I-2-B: "Insult" is content based, not OK; "Rude" is content based, not OK; "obscene" expression is not protected but under the Miller test it seems quite unlikely that any "gestures or comments or observations" would fit the bill (at least any that you would utter at a political protest, with your clothes on)
I-2-C: almost certainly place/manner only.
II-1: swearing, cursing, and profanity are all content-based and so not OK

... where throughout, "not OK" means "subject to a strict scrutiny test that they would almost certainly not pass." So yes, I suspect certain parts of this statute are unconstitutional, but probably not as applied to the congress critters - we'll have to wait until charges are filed to know for sure (ha!).
posted by rkent at 4:57 PM on April 28, 2006

"But they should have got at least 1 republican to do it with them. A bipartisan message is far stronger than one that appears to be purely a partisan political move. At least they had some non-crazies in the group, though."

Yes, they need to coddle the Dem-hating shitheads of the right.
posted by fleacircus at 5:06 PM on April 28, 2006

"One is named Timber Dick.

The other is named... Dick Swett."

Suuuuure they are.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 5:13 PM on April 28, 2006

Yes, they need to coddle the Dem-hating shitheads of the right.

Yes, ladies and gents, that right there is the unifying attitude that will help us to get past the divisive and unproductive Bush years. It's a good thing only republicans are divisive, obscene and insulting. Otherwise, we'd be in big trouble.

bardic, several republicans cosponsored S.Res. 383, which was agreed to by unanimous consent in the senate. It's not a divisive issue. It gets a lot of lip service from both parties, but little or no real action from either.

rkent, I think you have a point, to some extent. But in a city like DC, the only way an unconstitutional law relating to speech will stay on the books for long is if it is never applied in a way that triggers the unconstitutional provision. There's no evidence that that happened here, is there? If there is, and if somebody decides to put the money behind it to sue, appeal, and go to the Supremes, that could be interesting. But aside from that possibility, speculation about the constitutionality of the statute is purely an academic exercise (and an interesting one).
posted by JekPorkins at 5:15 PM on April 28, 2006

jim moran, you are awesome. i am glad i voted for you.

i will hopefully see you sunday, on the mall, at the larger demonstration.
posted by kneelconqueso at 5:18 PM on April 28, 2006

This type of thing makes me proud to be an American.

the other 99% of the time, I am plotting my expatico to Canada.
posted by subaruwrx at 5:25 PM on April 28, 2006

If we're talking about the same resolution, it was Biden's, a D, with Brownback co-sponsoring. That said, while neither party "owns" complacency on Darfur, it's disingenuos to suggest that the Dems arrested today were trying to "leave out" Republicans. There were plenty of press releases to go around, and any member of the House or Senate could have joined in the symbolic gesture. Further, to blame the minority party for not playing nice with the majority party is kind of idiotic IMO.
posted by bardic at 5:44 PM on April 28, 2006

But you're missing the point gesamtkunstwerk--Democrats are once again playing politics. George Bush dressing up in a flightsuit was helping win the war on terror.

That is a sweet comeback
posted by elpapacito at 5:52 PM on April 28, 2006

bardic, when looking for accurate information about legislation, go to thomas, and not Biden's inaccurate and self-congratulatory press release.

The resolution had 20 cosponsors and passed by UC.

Did today's arrestees invite any republicans? You don't know, do you? Maybe they did. Who knows? But the whole thing would have been more effective, IMO, if it had been bipartisan. Who's to blame? Both parties are.

I blame everyone who doesn't play nice for not playing nice, and I blame everyone who grandstands for political gain for being counterproductive. If that's idiotic, so be it.

And why doesn't anyone ever say that America's gotten so bad that they're going to move to Mexico? It's always Canada.
posted by JekPorkins at 5:53 PM on April 28, 2006

sorry to others for the derail

ericb : Limbaugh arrested on drug charges.

WEST PALM BEACH, Florida (AP) -- Rush Limbaugh and prosecutors in the long-running painkiller fraud case against him have reached a deal calling for the only charge against the conservative commentator to be dropped if he continues treatment, his attorney said Friday.

O RLY ? Yah, RLY. Quoting Rush

And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up. The answer is to go out and find the ones who a e getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river too

Ok so no slack for you, yo go up the river like you said Rush. Thank God you are taken seriously only by idiots.
posted by elpapacito at 6:11 PM on April 28, 2006

"Yes, ladies and gents, that right there is the unifying attitude that will help us to get past the divisive and unproductive Bush years"

Yes, and when a more civilized, rational approach is taken to reach a consensus, we're tofu loving tie-died hippies who took too much acid in the 60's. Coddling shitheads is non-productive.
posted by 2sheets at 6:13 PM on April 28, 2006

And why doesn't anyone ever say that America's gotten so bad that they're going to move to Mexico? It's always Canada.

According to a recent FPP, that may no longer be the case.
posted by Falconetti at 6:22 PM on April 28, 2006

So the five Dems in question shouldn't have made this symbolic gesture, since it left out Republicans?

Yeah, that's idiotic.

Politics is always rough, but you can't ignore Rove's influence as a qualitative shift in bipartisan affairs. Don't expect me to shed any tears when Dems, with good reasons and intentions, score points and don't invite Reps to play along.
posted by bardic at 6:28 PM on April 28, 2006

Actually, it's American retirees moving to Mexico these days (and Eastern Europe).

Major cities remain viable options though.
posted by bardic at 6:30 PM on April 28, 2006

The "crisis in Darfur" has been a pet issue of the Christian Right for some time.
posted by me & my monkey at 6:48 PM on April 28, 2006

So let’s go over this again, five Democrats are willing to put it on the line for principle. These public servants are arrested while standing up, and acting in support of what is right and good. Got it.

Now, uh, exactly how many Republicans were arrested speaking out for humanity? I suppose we can count one drug-addled gasbag.

Does this illustrate how liberals are different?
posted by BillyElmore at 7:10 PM on April 28, 2006

Well fuck. Looks like I just violated DC Code § 22-1307.

If you were too lazy to read it the first time, I quote:

DC Code § 22-1307. Unlawful assembly; profane and indecent language.

It [is illegal] for any[body] [in DC] to [make trouble] any[where we say] and [generally harass] persons passing by; it [is illegal] for any[body] to curse, swear, [etc.] any[where we say], under a penalty of not more than $250 or imprisonment for not more than 90 days, or both for each and every such offense.

Note: I like my version better.
posted by zekinskia at 7:24 PM on April 28, 2006

Yeah, I think the "unlawful assembly" is due to the fact that this happened at an embassy, which, I believe, is technically foreign soil and thus subject to foreign law.
Um ... no? "At" an embassy? An embassy and its grounds are indeed foreign soil, but the outside of that embassy/grounds? Not so much. If it happened on another country's sovereign territory, do the police have jurisdiction? They do if it happened off the embassy's property, but then it's no longer foreign soil. Ooooh, the paradox.
posted by kaemaril at 8:15 PM on April 28, 2006

The "crisis in Darfur" has been a pet issue of the Christian Right for some time.

And a pet issue of right-wing noise-machine blogs, such as LGF. Guess what? No post on the arrests. Not LGF. Not Malkin. Not Instapundit. Guess maybe they're not watching the issue as closely as they claim.
posted by dhartung at 8:26 PM on April 28, 2006

more on clooney, cuz it's all about clooney! btw, al pacino signs on for ocean's 13 :P
posted by kliuless at 10:08 PM on April 28, 2006

only five. This is genocide an only 5 people from Congress make a stand.

where are all those fundamentalist Megachurch preachers on this? I wonder if Jesus would stand by and let this happen. I guess real Christians only care about unborn children...
posted by any major dude at 10:30 PM on April 28, 2006

There's nothing stopping the Republicans from organising their own rally and getting arrested under their own steam. Get to it!
posted by plep at 2:48 AM on April 30, 2006

there's another rally on the mall today :D

cheers!
posted by kliuless at 5:32 AM on April 30, 2006

There's nothing stopping the Republicans from organising their own rally and getting arrested under their own steam. Get to it!

Turning a nondivisive issue into a partisan one and then suggesting that separate partisan rallies would somehow be effective is stupid.
posted by JekPorkins at 2:48 PM on May 1, 2006

Nomads Land Films - The Art of Flight - Documentary on Sudan, Darfur Refugees (voogle hum)
posted by kliuless at 6:48 PM on May 1, 2006