The leaders in Iraq said they would love to have our military stay, as advisors and trainers. They do not want them to stay, in a combat role, and as such are asking that our visiting military personnel recognize and live by Iraqi laws. Since when is it a bad thing for a country that we are "trying to liberate", to try to stand on it's own, and assert it's independence?

Many of the leaders in Iraq wanted the U.S. Military to stay in Iraq, as advisors and trainers. They did not want them to stay, in a combat role. Because, they would not be staying in a combat role, they wanted our military personnel to recognize their countries sovereignty and abide by their laws (as they would expect with anyone else visiting their country). We have claimed that one of our main objectives was to free the people of Iraq, help them set a foundation for a new Government, and allow them to stand on their own once again. Now, that we have done that, and they are asserting their independence, we have the nerve to get indignant about it?

If memory serves, they never asked us to go over there and remove Saddam from power. That was a mission that we took on ourselves (one that realistically should have been taken care of in 1992). Being that we volunteered our services, we are solely responsible for bearing the burden and the cost of our actions over there. If our true goal was to protect the world from WMDs and free the people of Iraq, we have accomplished that mission, and our service men and women should hold their heads high.

Our politicians getting their egos bruised, and making petty demands for monetary or material compensation does nothing but, dishonor and disrespect those who, thought that they were giving their lives fighting for our country and for their (the Iraqi Peoples) freedom, not for their money and oil.

I’m sad to say, I just lost a lot of respect for Bachmann.

May God bless our troops, and see them returned home soon.

Let me get this right, you are saying that the cops may have handled it wrong but, it's O.K. because they (the dancers) are led by a "liberal whack job troublemaker"? It's O.K. to violate their rights, because you disagree with their views and how they choose to express them? It's O.K. to take away their rights because, (you assume) that they were there, looking to have them violated? That is a very scary sentiment from someone who claims to be a police officer.

The police officer (in the video) at one point, starts to explain to the dancers, that in their (the police officers) view, this was a form of organized protest that was prohibited under law in D.C. That law, in and of itself violates the 1st amendment by abridging (to reduce in scope : diminish) the peoples right to protest. If you take your oath, as a police officer, to uphold and defend the Constitution of these United States seriously, then you can not do so selectively, based on how you feel about the people who are exercising their rights.

So, let me get this right...because a group of people that you disagree with was involved in the protest, that makes it O.K. to violate their rights? I absolutely detest Code Pink and everything they stand for, but I will defend (to the death) their right to spew their vile views and protest what they see as injustices done by our government. When we allow police (an arm of the government) to start making determinations about what topics they will allow to be protested, how the protests will be conducted, where they will allow the protests (on public lands) to take place, and who they will allow to protest...then we truly, are no longer a free people.

Most hospitals are not publicly owned, and Operating Rooms are not freely accessible to the general public. In most cases, even county hospitals, are considered private property. This is the same for almost all mortuaries and cemeteries. They fall under private property laws as well, leaving it up to the property owners or their designates to determine whether your activities are welcome or not. But, if you want to stand out side the hospital or mortuary/cemetery (ON PUBLICLY OWNED OR CONTROLLED LAND) and belt out the SSB, then you are completely covered by the 1 st amendment.

The cops, in this case, were wrong...and, to them I say...WE CAN DANCE IF WE WANT TO, OR WE CAN LEAVE YOUR FRIENDS BEHIND, CAUSE YOUR FRIENDS DON'T DANCE, AND IF THEY DON'T DANCE, WELL, THERE NO FRIENDS OF MINE!!!

You know, I'm willing to bet that 90% of police officers who abuse their authority, don't start off the day saying, "I think I'm going to go and overreact and beat hell out of someone today. As a matter of fact, I think I just might kill some one today. Why not?"

Even if the dancers in this video got up with the intent to protest, "create a disturbance", and annoy the police. So long as their actions do not cause harm to others, their activity is protected by the 1st Amendment. No where in the constitution does it say you can only exercise these rights, so long as you don't disturb, vex, or annoy any other person or government official, and so long as your activity is not considered to be pointless, stupid, moronic, or idiotic.

We do have a right to speak freely and express ourselves freely in public. So long as we are not causing HARM to others, it does not matter how others feel about what we are doing or saying. WE DO HAVE THE RIGHT!

LMAO...with the exception of the last two wars (afganistan and iraq) every war or military conflict we have entered into in the last 100 years...has been under a Democrat President and Democrat controlled Congress...So if Republicans weren't in power, how did they start them? Just wondering, oh so wise one, can you please enlighten us?

He did taser her, that's why she started screaming and crying. Right after he threw her in the seat and jumped on top of her, he told her "put your arms behind your back or im going to taze you". and then you hear the slight clicking sound of the tazer followed by her screams.

I don't know if you remember how cramped those seats are, but imagin being thrown face down into one of those seats, and then being pinned down by a 220 pound + man, you aren't going to be able to move much of anything much less get it behind your back real easy.

Quite frankly I think he needs to be brought up on charges (not just terminated), the same as any of us would be had we done the same.

Police Officers and Deputies are only allowed to use what force is deemed both reasonable and necessary at the time that force is initiated. It doesn’t take a raging Liberal to see that this Deputy (former now) used far more force then was needed to accomplish the goal of placing her in handcuffs. He could have easily stood her up (as he did), turned her around (while standing) and placed her in cuffs. He did not need to pick her up by the collar, throw her across the bus isle, jam her face between a bus seat and the wall of the bus, and jump on top of her using pain compliance to make her scream and cry before putting her in handcuffs. She was calmly refusing to obey his orders, not arguing, yelling, making threats, or in any other way giving him reason to think that his safety was at risk.

If he’s willing to step that far over the line with a child over a cell phone issue, imagine what he does with others, that we haven’t seen. I feel sorry for anyone on here, who sees this video, and doesn’t have a problem with a member of government (such as this) stepping outside of department policy, and being physically violent with children, over minor offences.

I wonder why he didn't mention all the (white) German Americans that were sent to internment camps under Woodrow Wilson during WWI? or the fact that both Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt were Progressive Democrats? oh yeah, that's right, that might look bad for them...considering they are members of the very party responsable for both instances (where our government took away the rights of large numbers of our own citizens, by threat of force, and imprisoned them without criminal charge), and it would remove Race as a sole causal factor for the interning of these citizens.