George Clooney arrested at Sudan embassy protest

Nation & World | George Clooney arrested at Sudan embassy protest | Seattle Times Newspaper

Those arrested with him included two Democratic members of Congress — Massachusetts Rep. Jim McGovern and Virginia Rep. Jim Moran — Clooney's father Nick, NAACP president Ben Jealous, and Rabbi Steve Gutow, president of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs.

The group was protesting the Sudanese hunger crisis, accusing President Omar al-Bashir of blocking food and humanitarian assistance from reaching hundreds of thousands of Sudanese.


The men were arrested by the Secret Service, which protects the embassies in the District of Columbia, and were charged with disorderly crossing of a police line, a Secret Service spokesman said. If convicted, the charge will likely result in a small fine.

Click to expand...

I'd like to know what exactly they did to get charged with 'disorderly crossing of a police line'. Like, not in single file or what? There is an effort in Congress to outlaw protesting near a person with Secret Service protection. ( Bill Passes House: Protests Near Secret Service Protected Folk Effectively Outlawed - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine ) So I have little faith that they were guilty of anything other than speaking.

Wonder if those two Democratic Congressmen figured out that they were suppose to be serving the people of the United States. Thats what they were sent to Washington for. To Serve the people of Mass and Virginia. See, now if they were in the House, where they were suppose to be and working for the American People. They would not get caught up with Hollywood Starlets and whatever issues and concerns they have for those overseas.

Now as far as Georgie boy is concerned.....if he wants to do something about Sudan. Then let him take his azz over there. This is a NOPD situation.

MMC said:

Wonder if those two Democratic Congressmen figured out that they were suppose to be serving the people of the United States. Thats what they were sent to Washington for. To Serve the people of Mass and Virginia. See, now if they were in the House, where they were suppose to be and working for the American People. They would not get caught up with Hollywood Starlets and whatever issues and concerns they have for those overseas.

Now as far as Georgie boy is concerned.....if he wants to do something about Sudan. Then let him take his azz over there. This is a NOPD situation.

Click to expand...

Umm George Clooney HAS "taken his ass over there" many times. He has worked with Sudanese communities and has had guns pointed at him by warlords who didn't like what he was doing. He's practically our unofficial ambassador to the region. So perhaps you should get your facts straight before you run your mouth. And US congressmen, like anyone else, are free to speak their own minds. If you don't like it and you live in their districts, you can vote for someone else.

MMC said:

Wonder if those two Democratic Congressmen figured out that they were suppose to be serving the people of the United States. Thats what they were sent to Washington for. To Serve the people of Mass and Virginia. See, now if they were in the House, where they were suppose to be and working for the American People. They would not get caught up with Hollywood Starlets and whatever issues and concerns they have for those overseas.

Now as far as Georgie boy is concerned.....if he wants to do something about Sudan. Then let him take his azz over there. This is a NOPD situation.

Click to expand...

Are you saying americans should not try to help out other people when they can?

L0neW0lf said:

Are you saying americans should not try to help out other people when they can?

Click to expand...

No I am not saying that.....but before one can help others one must help themselves. The analogy applies here. Have we solved the hungry and the destitute here in the US?

Do you think Congressmen should be out demonstrating and being activitists for a cause that is outside of the United States? Or should they be doing what their constituients sent them to Washington for? Because I doubt highly, Sudan was topping that list.

MMC said:

Now as far as Georgie boy is concerned.....if he wants to do something about Sudan. Then let him take his azz over there. This is a NOPD situation.

Click to expand...

Your turn?

MMC said:

Do you think Congressmen should be out demonstrating and being activitists for a cause that is outside of the United States?

Click to expand...

Seeing as we don't live in a geographic vacuum, the answer is an unequivocal: Yes.

Or should they be doing what their constituents sent them to Washington for?

Click to expand...

Among other things? Yes.

Because I doubt highly, Sudan was topping that list.

Click to expand...

Who says it was?

Kandahar said:

Umm George Clooney HAS "taken his ass over there" many times. He has worked with Sudanese communities and has had guns pointed at him by warlords who didn't like what he was doing. He's practically our unofficial ambassador to the region. So perhaps you should get your facts straight before you run your mouth. And US congressmen, like anyone else, are free to speak their own minds. If you don't like it and you live in their districts, you can vote for someone else.

Click to expand...

Yes that nice. Now what has it accomplished? Good thing Georgie Boy can't decide for the US to involve themsleves into another country's affairs. As far as my facts straight, I have them. Your Georgie boy.....is concerned about the travesties and injustices taking place in that country. What about in this country? Is Georgie leading the way in their fight? Has Georgie used his millions to hire any mercs to do anything about his pet project.

Yes Georgie is free to influence politicans to get involved into another countries affairs. Georgie is also free to move his azz right on over there too.

Hatuey said:

Your turn?

Click to expand...

NP.....what I meant by taking his azz over there. Is him leading the fight rather than sitting on the sidelines. Becoming one of their freedom fighters. Becoming a Citizen of their Country. Then he can help bring about that New form of Democracy there.

MMC said:

Yes that nice. Now what has it accomplished? Good thing Georgie Boy can't decide for the US to involve themsleves into another country's affairs. As far as my facts straight, I have them. Your Georgie boy.....is concerned about the travesties and injustices taking place in that country. What about in this country? Is Georgie leading the way in their fight? Has Georgie used his millions to hire any mercs to do anything about his pet project.

Yes Georgie is free to influence politicans to get involved into another countries affairs. Georgie is also free to move his azz right on over there too.

Click to expand...

He's trying to help achieve a higher standard of living in the country by lobbying for increased aid, nothing wrong with that especially when many countries receive billions of dollars of aid while being far less deserving or needy. What's happening in Sudan is definitely worthy of protest, the "injustices" occuring in this country are incomparable.

So if someone is intent on improving living conditions in another country, he should move there? That's just silly.

I have always despised this guy and honestly don't know if he is looking for glory or truly trying to help but whatever the reason he is bringing attention to a very tragic situation and I commend him, That hurt, OUCH!

MMC said:

No I am not saying that.....but before one can help others one must help themselves.

Click to expand...

Clooney's well taken care of...I doubt he's going hungry any time soon. As for refraining from any attempts to influence policy in other parts of the world until/unless everything's ideal here, that would mean never ever attempting to influence policy in other parts of the world.

In any case, the notion that a given issue must be perfectly solved in one's home country before addressing things abroad is a choice of values, not some self-obvious or inherent feature of politics in general.

Clooney's activism (on several fronts) is in the tradition of conscientious people of privilege who recognize their own privilege as on opportunity to be an effective force for change. Contrasted against the norm of celebrities and the wealthy using most of their disposable time and income to simply rake in more disposable time and income, I welcome it.

MMC said:

The analogy applies here. Have we solved the hungry and the destitute here in the US?

Click to expand...

No, but the notion that we -- or anyone -- must do so before voicing criticism and dissent on other fronts or scales is arbitrary and bizarre.

MMC said:

Do you think Congressmen should be out demonstrating and being activitists for a cause that is outside of the United States?

Click to expand...

That's up to them. People do not surrender their free speech rights at the door when being elected to Congress. Some in congress manage to retain their conscience despite being elected.

MMC said:

Or should they be doing what their constituients sent them to Washington for? Because I doubt highly, Sudan was topping that list.

Click to expand...

Once again, a bizarre implicit standard. People in congress are not obligated, legally OR ethically, to exclusively spend all their waking hours doing the work of congress. Furthermore, there is no necessary conflict between advocating more humane policies internationally vs. at home. Either way, this idea that they must work exclusively and entirely for one and not at all for the other is completely unwarranted.

Thank you for pointing out some of the problems with US Foreign Policy showing how all that has worked for the last 50 years. I have no sympathy for politicans who want to serve their people. But then drop the ball doing so.

These politicians may have to vote on bills or acts concerning Sudan. How can they do so objectionally if they are involved? Can any say they have no bias to influence that vote? Or that they want to give money to NFP's and set up NGO's in the Sudan.

What do you think the perception is of US Lawmakers getting arrested for activism with issues concerning another foreign country, rather than their own? Is this an example to show those in the future that get into politics. That this is serving their people? Serving their interests? Is Massachusetts and Virginia conducting any buisness with the Sudan?

Again.....what National Security Interests are cause for the US to get involved into another country's civil war and or conflicts for control and ruling that country?

MMC said:

These politicians may have to vote on bills or acts concerning Sudan. How can they do so objectionally if they are involved?

Click to expand...

I'm going to assume you meant "objectively".

Let's save some time here. Objectivity is a farce. There is no such thing as a value-free action.

Basing one's stance on empirical evidence is possible. Objectivity -- the mythical ideal of one's conclusions being impervious to influence from values -- is impossible...because *accuracy* is itself a value.

The remainder of your post seems to continue your hysterical implied premise that people in congress are obligated to work under an arbitrary limitation of perspective (i.e. they must irrationally refuse to consider scales of influence and interaction above that of U.S. policy).

You have never made any case for justifying such an irrational expectation. You seem to operate on the premise that people in congress should be bound by rules and obligations which -- thus far -- you are treating as obvious but which only you seem to know about.

MMC said:

No I am not saying that.....but before one can help others one must help themselves. The analogy applies here. Have we solved the hungry and the destitute here in the US?

Click to expand...

We don't have anything in the US that is REMOTELY comparable to the poverty in the Sudan, so yes we have.

Do you think Congressmen should be out demonstrating and being activitists for a cause that is outside of the United States?

Click to expand...

Sure, if they want to.

Or should they be doing what their constituients sent them to Washington for?

Click to expand...

If you live in their district and you don't like it, vote for someone else. Otherwise, it's not really your place to say why their constituents sent them to Washington.

Because I doubt highly, Sudan was topping that list.

Click to expand...

Do you show the same outrage when congresspeople express an interest in the wellbeing of Israel or Iraq or Afghanistan? Or is it only when they show concern for black people?

MMC said:

Yes that nice. Now what has it accomplished? Good thing Georgie Boy can't decide for the US to involve themsleves into another country's affairs. As far as my facts straight, I have them. Your Georgie boy.....is concerned about the travesties and injustices taking place in that country. What about in this country?

Click to expand...

What about it? Who the hell are you to tell people what parts of the world they should care about? Why should people be expected to care more about people who are located within the same arbitrarily-drawn border where they happened to be born, as opposed to people in other parts of the world? This is racist, nationalist nonsense.

Is Georgie leading the way in their fight? Has Georgie used his millions to hire any mercs to do anything about his pet project.

Click to expand...

:lol:
"Hire mercs"? It seems that you are a bit confused as to what it is that Clooney is actually advocating for in the first place.

Yes Georgie is free to influence politicans to get involved into another countries affairs. Georgie is also free to move his azz right on over there too.

Click to expand...

Clooney has indeed spent a great deal of time in the Sudan.

Kandahar said:

We don't have anything in the US that is REMOTELY comparable to the poverty in the Sudan, so yes we have.



Sure, if they want to.



If you live in their district and you don't like it, vote for someone else. Otherwise, it's not really your place to say why their constituents sent them to Washington.



Do you show the same outrage when congresspeople express an interest in the wellbeing of Israel or Iraq or Afghanistan? Or is it only when they show concern for black people?

Click to expand...

First I would go by the premise that any who are voted into office and sent to Washington are there to represent those from their states.(generally speaking and commonly known) Second I would be concerned about the US government throwing money out to foreign countries whether that Aid is Humanitarian or Military Aid. That would be to friend or foe or non-aligned. Especially in a country that is in recesion and debt with our infrastructure falling down all around us!!!!!

Do I care if Clooney throws his money to any in Sudan personally or any other Americans that want to do so with their money? Not at all.(thats their right) Do I care about some actor who's influence gets Congressmen to come out and stand with him on a cause concerning another foreign country. Now that I take issue with. As for the obvious reasons of the Starlets Worldwide recognition and money. No one is stopping Clooney from speaking out about such. No one denies that Clooney has been in the Sudan since the atrocities in Darfur. Clooney also knows that it would take changing the government of Sudan in order to get any type of play and to have real effort to stop the genoicide. Both tribal and religious. Which means US interference or that of the UN.

While arguing the semantics of free speech and the right to talk about whatever. That Politicians should be able to do whatever on their own time. Are they off between 9-5pm? Are they off during the weekdays? So now while running around the country and their state for campaign. Endorsing other people. While still representing their state and those responsibilities. They should waste the taxpayers money by protesting the Sudan Embassy. Meaning their government and all that pertains to it. When there is no threat to our National Security with anything concerning Sudan? Do you think government should be ran effeciently and effectively?

Is it the United States right to jump off into any other countries and their civil wars? Does a politican need to Lead by Example?

MMC said:

First I would go by the premise that any who are voted into office and sent to Washington are there to represent those from their states (generally speaking and commonly known)

Click to expand...

No one here has raised any objection to that. Where you take a running leap off the deep end is when you go and write as if those in congress, or private individuals (i.e. Clooney) are somehow overstepping some imaginary and completely arbitrary bounds by raising concerns about things going on outside the borders of the United States.

You keep repeating implicit assertion of this premise in each and every post, because you continue to write as though the substance and worth of this completely unwarranted presumption is supposed to be obvious...when it ISN'T.

Thus far, the face you are presenting to others -- as a poster -- is one of irrational isolationism -- not just in policy but in conception of cause and effect in general. Real life doesn't work that way. In real life, cause and effect don't draw or abide by arbitrary forcefields raised at the edges of countries on a map.

MMC said:

Wonder if those two Democratic Congressmen figured out that they were suppose to be serving the people of the United States. Thats what they were sent to Washington for. To Serve the people of Mass and Virginia. See, now if they were in the House, where they were suppose to be and working for the American People. They would not get caught up with Hollywood Starlets and whatever issues and concerns they have for those overseas.

Now as far as Georgie boy is concerned.....if he wants to do something about Sudan. Then let him take his azz over there. This is a NOPD situation.

Click to expand...

You missed the part where the Secret Service arrested Americans for speaking, in order to protect a foreign warlord from having to hear it.

Oh, were you concerned that the piece stated two Democrats? I wouldn't want that to confuse anyone with my comments. That their party is such a concern to me. Which is why I said politicans.

As to Clooney making us all aware of what is taking place in the Sudan and Darfur. I think his friend Susan Rice, the US Ambassador has been presenting the case. With what pertains to the Foreign Policy and specifically those issues. While this adminsitration may feel like it should give more money to Sudan. I think it realizes that it is limited in how much it can do.

No one said anything about Isolationism. But Clooney is talking about those in power in Sudan. So all those ramifications apply.
Seems Russia and China have the most influence with the Sudanese. Perhaps Clooney might want to talk to them about using some leverage. To help out and play police-man.

MMC said:

No one said anything about Isolationism. But Clooney is talking about those in power in Sudan. So all those ramifications apply.
Seems Russia and China have the most influence with the Sudanese. Perhaps Clooney might want to talk to them about using some leverage. To help out and play police-man.

Click to expand...

Umm Clooney HAS been involved in encouraging them to use their leverage. Did you miss the part where the Sudan was split in half into two countries last year, at the prodding of the Chinese?

Kandahar said:

Umm Clooney HAS been involved in encouraging them to use their leverage. Did you miss the part where the Sudan was split in half into two countries last year, at the prodding of the Chinese?

Click to expand...

I don't think I would have mentioned them if I didn't know about it. Good, let him focus his efforts there.

MMC said:

I don't think I would have mentioned them if I didn't know about it.

Good, let him focus his efforts there.

Click to expand...

But he cant protest about it here in the US outside the Sudanese embassy?

Fair play to Clooney he is trying to give a voice to those who thus far have none.