“Five Congress members were willingly arrested
By on Apr 28th, 2006 at 12:03 pm
“Five Congress members were willingly arrested
and led away from the Sudanese Embassy in plastic handcuffs Friday in protest of the Sudanese government’s role in atrocities in the Darfur region. ‘The slaughter of the people of Darfur must end,’ Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA), a Holocaust survivor…, said from the embassy steps before his arrest.”
UPDATE: PoliticsTV was on the scene. Watch the video.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
For those who are interested, much more in today’s Progress Report.
April 28th, 2006 at 12:10 pmTom Lantos D-CA
James McGovern D-MA
John Olver D-MA
Sheila Jackson Lee D-TX
Jim Moran D-VA
Thank you. So proud…
April 28th, 2006 at 12:16 pmone must follow their own conscience. but i have to wonder why they are not here protesting the injustices to Americans by their own government!
April 28th, 2006 at 12:23 pmyou gotta look and listen, meg_mac, but they are…
April 28th, 2006 at 12:31 pmhowever, the genocide in darfur cannot compare to the
“injustices to americans”… just sayin’…
Why didn’t they legally protest? Why go and break laws as a lawmaker?
April 28th, 2006 at 12:37 pmtundra, think you would have heard about THAT?
April 28th, 2006 at 12:40 pmthis made a much bigger, more necessary impression…
and, with that, it was still so little …
#5 – Are you trying to be funny, Tundra, or are you really missing the point?
April 28th, 2006 at 12:45 pmKATY… i agree totally!!! not trying to undervalue what is happening in Darfur!!! But….. the foreign policy of this country has some culpability in the situation!!
April 28th, 2006 at 12:45 pm6,
I understand that, but if I have an issue that I hold near and dear that they may not care about, is it OK for me to break the law to get the word out? For instance say I want to bring attention to foreign trades effects on our economy can I break the law to do it? If a KKK member wants to make their point can they break the law to do it? If anti abortion activists want to protest can they do it illegally?
Or are we deciding on which issues we can applaud them for breaking the law for, and which issues they must follow the law with?
April 28th, 2006 at 12:45 pm7
Sadly no, I’m not trying to be funny on this one (Like I am ever really that funny :)
But when those that make the laws break them it says something about the laws or is it the people making them?
April 28th, 2006 at 12:48 pmTUNDRA… This did happen in another country. not subject to american law. and since when did anti-abortionist worry about law? seems like some doctors have died from bombings etc. not exactly following the letter of the law there!
April 28th, 2006 at 12:53 pm9> You act as though they killed or attacked someone to make their protest, which they obviously did not do. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the term “civil disobedience”.
April 28th, 2006 at 12:56 pmTundra you ignorant slut,
It is called Civil Disobedience. Mohandas Ghandi and Martin Luther King practised it. And the anti-abortion people are practicing it now.
So, you support genocide in Darfur, Tundra?
You must be a goddamn Republican.
April 28th, 2006 at 1:00 pmThis did happen in another country. not subject to american law.
“led away from the Sudanese Embassy by U.S Secret service” I take it as being led away from the Sudanese embassy by U.S Agents for breaking the law.
and since when did anti-abortionist worry about law? seems like some doctors have died from bombings etc. not exactly following the letter of the law there!
Please don’t think for one second I advocate any of that crap either. If there is a law the last person to break it should be our law makers/enforcers.
You act as though they killed or attacked someone to make their protest, which they obviously did not do. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the term “civil disobedienceâ€.
April 28th, 2006 at 1:01 pmOK, I’ll bite, could you please provide me with a list of what laws you expect our elected officials to follow and which ones they don’t have to? Also which laws they should be congratulated for breaking.
tundra, it’s called civil disobedience, served MLK, rosa, etc., well at the time…
April 28th, 2006 at 1:01 pmthese times call for much more of the same…
i wish i were that brave… soon, soon…
Ahh, short memories. The protests on the embassy steps were a staple of the anti-apartheid protests of the 1980s. Every day people would gather across the street from the embassy (on Mass Ave, just below the VP’s house), then they’d cross the street, approach the embassy, and get arrested. Lots of everyday people, and occasional poiticians or performers. It was a badge of honor to be included and to stand up for good over evil. These “arrests” played a major role in bringing the horror of apartheid home to the American people. And a small role in ending apartheid.
Tundra, the law they broke was one that says you are not allowed to gather and protest on the embassy grounds. They weren’t protesting that law and they didn’t believe there is anything wrong with that law. They were protesting the policies of the Sudanese government and bringing attention to the horrors in Darfur.
Tundra, civil disobedience has long played a role in American history. Start with the Boston Tea Party and read Martin Luther King’s letter from the Birmingham jail. Ask anyone who participated in the anti-nuclear power movement in the late ’70s and early 80s. This is how we do it. Sometimes you have to go outside the law to be heard.
April 28th, 2006 at 1:05 pm13,
Typical start a discussion and get called names by the morally superior ones in the bunch. In case you didn’t notice we haven’t resulted to name calling, we were having something called a “discussion”. I don’t assume anything more than what they have said.
So, you support genocide in Darfur, Tundra?
Yeah that’s what I was getting at you caught me. Perhaps I was saying they should have spent the day doing something about it in congress instead of spending it at the police station for breaking the law.
You must be a goddamn Republican.
April 28th, 2006 at 1:05 pmNo, but you can jump to any conclusions that help you sleep at night. Glad to see you find things out before you assume things and post knee jerk reactions that are way off base.
Tundra,
The GOP is not doing anything about Darfur.
At least these Democrats had the guts to do something.
Dick Cheney says the US does not have to do any more for Darfur.
So, you ARE supporting genocide in Darfur. Asshole.
April 28th, 2006 at 1:07 pmAhh, short memories. The protests on the embassy steps were a staple of the anti-apartheid protests of the 1980s
Perhaps we need to adjust the laws about protest. But we can’t make them and decide that we will break them when it suits our interests. Cindy Sheehan breaks protest laws and that’s fine, she can make that choice. She didn’t set the laws up.
April 28th, 2006 at 1:09 pmOK Tom since you are not able to have a civilized discussion based on principal I am no longer responding to you.
Please have a nice day!
April 28th, 2006 at 1:12 pm#10 – Tundra, see comments above on civil disobedience. I can add nothing more.
April 28th, 2006 at 1:14 pmtundra – “…they should have spent the day doing something about it in congress …”
uh, did you happen to notice the “D” after their names?
just heard sen.leahy remark on this on frankens show – the money we are spending to build an “embassy” in iraq is obsene compared to the little we send to darfur…
April 28th, 2006 at 1:16 pmTundra, you have no principles.
You’re just another Chimpyloving Neocon GOP supporter, bashing the Dems whenever you can.
April 28th, 2006 at 1:17 pmTundra – I do not think you support genocide cause, well, you actually never said that you did and I really hate to assume those kinds of things. Secondly, I cannot say that you are an asshole because on most threads although I usually do not agree with you you make valid arguments that make me think.
Having said that, while I do not condone breaking the law as a general rule, people in this country, and others, have often “taken to the streets” to protest actions that they believed were injustices. They then “suffer” the consequences of their actions. These individuals are not asking to be given a free pass. They may believe that it would have a greater impact this way.
April 28th, 2006 at 1:19 pm22
the money we are spending to build an “embassy†in iraq is obsene compared to the little we send to darfur
I agree we are spending way too much money in Iraq as well. I guess I don’t know what more money is going to do. I am not for doing anything militarily unless the U.N and congress decide it is necessary. By sending more money either we are arming one side (We know how well that has worked out for us) or the side that is doing the injustice is getting it.
April 28th, 2006 at 1:21 pm24
They then “suffer†the consequences of their actions. These individuals are not asking to be given a free pass.
Valid point. So you feel they decided that it was worth the cost of the fine or whatever the standard penalty for breaking that law was and agreed to take that hit to get the message out?
I can handle seeing it that way, Thanks!
April 28th, 2006 at 1:25 pmAbout a month ago NPR had these college students on. They had made a documentary in Dafur. They had gone to some of the refugee camps to speak with the people living there. There many horros that were told but two really stuck with me.
1. They had a “guide” who was this young man who spoke english so could translate for them. The students said this was high risk for him because if the government found out he would be killed. While they were working on the documentary he asked them if they could take him back to America with them. You could feel the emotion in the young mans (one of the students) voices when relaying this. They wanted so badly to help him.
2. There was a young girl, age 15. She lived alone in a tent as all of her family, including her extended family, had been murdered. She had nothing. Only the clothes on her back and the little food she received from the relief workers. She had been raped many times. I guess this one really hit me hard as I have a 17 year old daughter and to think of her in this situation, well I really cannot describe how this fels inside.
Why was it so important to Bush that we invade Iraq when there are so many more evils being committed in this world? My heart just breaks.
April 28th, 2006 at 1:35 pmI’m extremely proud of the fact that Jim Moran is my Congressman. I just called his office on the Hill and asked the staffer answering the phone to “please pat Jim on the back from me when he gets out of jail.” I also said “tell him I’m so proud of him I almost can’t contain myself”.
Dont you find it funny that the Repugnicans claim to be the “right-to-life” party. Yet, with a huge genocide going on in Sudan there isn’t one god damned Repugnican saying squat about the issue. Instead, five Democrats get arrested trying to bring attention to the issue. In 2004, Charlie Rangel (D-NY) was arrested protesting the same issue.
Actually if you think about it, Repugnicans didn’t do a damned thing about Kosovo either. Seems to me it was that Bill Clinton and a guy named Wesley Clark who got heavily involved in that issue. Where were the right-to-life “Christians” then? Where were they in Rwanda? Repugnicans seem to only show up when oil is involved.
How many days left until the November election when we can send those bastards home in droves??
April 28th, 2006 at 1:46 pmPEACEKEEPING
The Sudan conflicts have been going on for DECADES. They settled with the south under heavy US/international pressure and then Darfur came up. Sudan’s central government armed the janjaweed and supported their assaults with helicopter gunships.
Sudan continues to support rebels in the Darfur region that recently reached Chad’s capital
but were repelled by the Chadian army.
As for the peacekeepers it’s more an issue of money, not actual US physical involvement. While the role of NATO peacekeeping has been talked up, it’s not necessary.
The African Union wanted this to be a shining example of the first ever AU peacekeeping/observation mission. It has failed. The reason, though, is the pathetic number of troops they have (less than 1000) and their equipment.
The UN pays poor countries for their soldiers – it’s a cash cow for the government hence Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc always involved – so the US ought to take notice and pay the AU so they can *afford* to send soldiers and *afford* to buy proper equipment. Funding the AU would not be such a bad idea.
Indigenous solutions should be looked at primarily because Africa is, for the most part (excluding South Africa, etc), a basketcase. Strengtening the AU and hopefully including the idea of bringing leaders to account (Taylor comes to mind as a recent sucess) would be a good for the continent.
Getting rid of Mugagbe in Zimbabwe would be good too. To bad South Africa doesn’t have the necessary pull.
April 28th, 2006 at 1:56 pm#27
Add in hundreds of thousands of deaths in Darfur and the rest of Sudanese internal conflicts over the past decades.
We could always mention Zaire/Congo where 3 MILLION PEOPLE DIED and that was very recently. Not much mention of it in the press.
April 28th, 2006 at 1:58 pmAnd the RepubliCons will try to force them out of Congress for having an arrest record!
April 28th, 2006 at 2:41 pm#5 – “Why didn’t they legally protest?”
Unless I’m mistaken, Sudan won’t approve a “legal” protest againt the genocide. i’ll do some research to see if this is true or not, but I’ve got a friend who’s from Eretria, and they have very convoluted laws concerning protesting against the government.
“Why go and break laws as a lawmaker?”
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5341885
“A year ago, the U.N. Security Council authorized targeted sanctions against Sudanese officials, and others responsible for atrocities in Sudan’s Darfur region. But some U.N. diplomats accuse the U.S. of holding up talks on a list of people to be targeted by the sanctions.”
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2004/9/CDB82A4B-4BEB-43B1-819B-A914BE5F8856.html
In September of 2004, the “U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said today that genocide has occurred in Sudan’s western Darfur region. It is not immediately clear what this designation will lead to, but Powell’s comments come as the United States circulates a new draft resolution in the UN Security Council that seeks stronger measures to end the rampant human rights abuses still being committed in Sudan.”
“http://coalitionfordarfur.blogspot.com/2006/04/darfur-us-may-force-un-vote-on.html”
“The US on Monday threatened to force a United Nations vote on sanctions against individuals for war crimes allegedly committed in the western Sudanese region of Darfur, after Russia and China said they would block a British-drafted list to face a travel ban and assets freeze.”
After 2 years, all the US can do is talk about sanctions against some people in Sudan. Not the best track record. I believe the lawmakers thought illegal protests were the only alternative to more death.
April 28th, 2006 at 3:01 pmBUSHCO … has systematically gutted World Health Organization funding for birth control in third world countries. just part of the cold uncaring preemptive foreign policy the neocons have foiseted upon us! Darfur??? third world not worth the time. besides they are black anyway!
April 28th, 2006 at 3:11 pmA solid symbolic action that (I hope) succeeds in bringing up the subject (if only peripherally) on the evening news.
That’s what doing things like this is for — getting attention to your actions by the media, who then will (hopefully) mention why you did it.
April 28th, 2006 at 4:10 pmWay To Go Dems! I’m proud of you! each one of you!Thank You For Standing up.
April 28th, 2006 at 4:47 pm# 35 thot’s/katy:Thanks for the pride.I’ts never too…soon,soon…
April 28th, 2006 at 5:34 pmhey guru – guess you missed it:
April 28th, 2006 at 5:49 pmhttp://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/26/thinkfast-april-26-2006/#comment-525561
I think laws against assembly take a backseat to genocide.
April 28th, 2006 at 6:35 pmOut of curiousity what is the preferred method of handling this issue (If the U.N does not want to get involved)? I read on a TP link yesterday that it was African nations blocking it at the U.N level complaining about Soverign nations blah blah. If that is the case, what if anything should the U.S do?
April 28th, 2006 at 7:41 pmTen Congressmen are suing the president:
In February, the President signed a version of the “Deficit Reduction Act” that never passed the House. The draft signed by Bush omitted provisions from the version that passed the House..a difference of $2 billion in spending.
According to the Constitution of the United States, the same version of a bill must pass both houses of Congress before it can be signed by the President to become law.
According to earlier published accounts, Hastert notified the President that it had not passed the House of Representatives before the President went ahead with the Feb 8 signing.
April 28th, 2006 at 7:45 pmTundra,
That’s a great question.
Since the African Union already has some troops in Darfur, so the whole sovereign nation argument just doesn’t fly in light of this.
I’m not sure what link you’re referring to about those african nations blocking a response in the UN, but as I understand it the security council makes these sorts of decisions, not the general assembly.
And if there is resistence to a general UN force, it’s probably because the african union wants to take the lead on this issue (like the arguments for NATO taking the lead in Kosovo) – so most likely it would involve the UN funding some AU troop and materials before that resistence would disappear. I would imagine the AU wants a lead role in this situation, as opposed to yet another american base in an oil nation.
April 28th, 2006 at 10:20 pm# 36 katy:Missed what?
April 29th, 2006 at 11:34 am#26
I agree as well. People who choose civil disobedience as a method of drawing media attention also accept beforehand they will pay a price for their choice. Media attention is highly selective. 3,000 Americans get killed in a concerted act of terrorism and it makes immediate international news. Upwards of 2,000,000 people are exterminated in east Africa and it barely makes a ripple. But when 5 United States Congresspersons get arrested, THAT is deemed newsworthy.
One of the more effective tools in international situations such as genocide is publicity. Lots of publicity. It may seem strange, but people who are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of fellow human beings do not like their deeds to get the recognition they deserve.
April 29th, 2006 at 12:05 pmGuru, I think she means:
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/IRIN/e5e171e36ed0f9d25593dc3df35f9158.htm
and
http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/28963
April 29th, 2006 at 12:08 pmHere are the links from TP a little earlier dealing with the African Nations reaction.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/27/public-outrage-sporadic-before-is-growing/#comments
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/27/world/africa/27diplo.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
One proposal, to send 20,000 United Nations peacekeepers to Sudan, has been stymied by Khartoum’s adamant opposition. Without the government’s agreement, the Bush administration acknowledges, dispatching troops to Darfur would rightly be viewed as an invasion.
The United States and Europe have largely financed the African Union mission, but both have concluded that it is inadequate for the job. In February, the Security Council agreed to begin planning to send United Nations troops. The Bush administration said at the time that it would support the idea of having NATO take the lead in overseeing an interim African Union force until the arrival of United Nations troops.
But Sudan has remained opposed, and Khartoum has lobbied other African states, with some success, to view the idea as an affront to Sudanese sovereignty. Some of those other states would have to take part in any United Nations mission.
Mr. Zoellick, in a speech this month to the Brookings Institution, said, “Either you get approval of the government,” or “you invade, and that’s a very big, serious challenge.”
It sort of looks like a rock and hard place type situation for us. Hopefully the publicity can do something.
April 29th, 2006 at 12:58 pmdidja figure it out guru? do you know what a colon : is? didja click on the link below the colon?
April 29th, 2006 at 1:25 pm…there – got it?
“Without the government’s agreement, the Bush administration acknowledges, dispatching troops to Darfur would rightly be viewed as an invasion.”
No offense Tundra, but that didn’t seem to stop Bush from invading Iraq. And the current justification is that Saddam was killing his own people. Following the current rationale for invading Iraq, the Bush administration has no excuse for not invading Darfur.
I agree, it sort of looks like Bush is between Iraq and a hard place.
April 29th, 2006 at 2:18 pmNo offense Tundra, but that didn’t seem to stop Bush from invading Iraq.
I agree, I was never for going in the first place though (Not to be confused with my strong stance on staying now that we are there)
Being as I wasn’t for going, I really can’t be for going there either (Personally). Is it an injustice, Of course. Am I appalled that it is happening yes, but I cannot justify the U.S military being the world police (We made the Iraq mess and need to clean it up) but I don’t advocate sending weapons over there (Iraq, Afganastan should have taught us something), I don’t advocate sending troops. I guess helping the U.N financially deal with it is one thing, committing our troops is another. I guess I just don’t know what to do besides raise awareness.
I agree, it sort of looks like Bush is between Iraq and a hard place.
April 29th, 2006 at 3:42 pmhehe
I was never for going in the first place though (Not to be confused with my strong stance on staying now that we are there)
I believe we should leave as soon as possible and let U.N. Peacekeepers take our place.
Yes, I know what all that entails.
I have read many of your earlier posts, Tundra. I am glad we can find some common ground.
April 29th, 2006 at 5:45 pmOn April 30, restaurants in some major cities will be presenting Dining for Darfur–meaning that 5% of all proceeds will go to the refugees or groups aiding them. Further donations accepted. I feel a bit awkward about eating to help starving refugees but concluded that since i’m likely to be having dinner, anyway, I may as well let some of the money go for a good cause. Maybe I’ll order something expensive; I also plan on giving an extra donation. Those of you interested should google Dining for Darfur to see if a restaurant in your area is participating in this program.
April 30th, 2006 at 2:50 amThe same week they Do this, they sign the Iran Freedom Support Act, about the same thing that led to the Iraq War, the Sanctions of 1998.
They are only acting, I don’t think they give a Rats Ass about the Darfur Genocide, it all seems so scripted.
April 30th, 2006 at 9:39 amhttp://diningfordarfur.org/restaurants.php
April 30th, 2006 at 11:19 am