View Full Version : Iraqi Shoe Thrower Gets Three Years
BAGHDAD — An Iraqi journalist who gained widespread acclaim throughout the Arab world for hurling his shoes at President Bush during a visit here in December was sentenced to three years in jail by a court on Thursday.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/13/world/middleeast/13iraq.html?_r=1&ref=world
Hooahguy
03-12-2009, 20:53
3 years?! a bit much, IMO.
Strike For The South
03-12-2009, 20:56
3 years? This is the country we were spreading democracy to, right?
IIRC the old punishment for such an offense was 15 years.
3 years? This is the country we were spreading democracy to, right?It was attempted assault on a foreign leader. The country is still trying to prove that it has some semblance of law and order. What should that have done? Thrown him a party?
Strike For The South
03-12-2009, 21:17
It was attempted assault on a foreign leader. The country is still trying to prove that it has some semblance of law and order. What should that have done? Thrown him a party?
No he should be punished and I think jail time is appropriate. 3 years just seems a tad much. I'd have given him 2.
Seamus Fermanagh
03-12-2009, 21:39
He did this in the wrong country.
Here in the USA, he'd have been given less than a year with most of that suspended and would probably have landed 3-4 paid interviews, a small book deal and a Reebok endorsement contract.
He did this in the wrong country.
Here in the USA, he'd have been given less than a year with most of that suspended and would probably have landed 3-4 paid interviews, a small book deal and a Reebok endorsement contract.
Provided that Secret Service wouldn't be quick enough to shoot him on the spot.
Sheogorath
03-12-2009, 22:10
3 years?! a bit much, IMO.
The guy's lucky the Secret Service didn't blow his head off the moment he threw something at the ex-President.
Seriously, where were they on that one? I'm surprised the guy wasn't at least tackled the moment he stood up.
Rhyfelwyr
03-12-2009, 22:11
3 years seems very harsh, he was only trying to make a point, not really harm Mr. Bush.
Although I'm also surprised he wasn't taken out on the spot.
3 :daisy: years? Murders can get less time than that on good behavior, shows where the worlds :daisy: priorities are. I'm one to harshly judge but even I think 3 years for shoe throwing is wayyyyy to much, 3 months maybe....
Major Robert Dump
03-12-2009, 22:31
I think as time goes on, the definition for "assault" gets more and more absurd, and its nice to see the American definition is spreading to out protectorate. Attempted battery, maybe, but aggression against a visiting head of state? The guy missed FFS
Was it a steel-toe boot, was there cement in the heel, was it a shoe bomb? What about an egg to the side of the head or a pie in the face, or squirting Tom Cruise in the face with water?
What if the shoe were tossed at, say, a state Senator from Texas or the Governor of South Dakota or the chairman of the FCC, would it still be considered aggression against a visiting head of state? What if the head of state is not visiting, and he is, in fact, there on a guest worker program to do the job Iraqis don't want to do for themselves? What if its a former head of state, or a head of state up on corruption charges, or a head of state from a country considered the enemy?
Of course, regionally speaking, I'm surprised he got off this easy. I imagine if it were a woman tossing the shoe she would already be stoned to death
LittleGrizzly
03-12-2009, 23:17
Three years is way over the top, hell he even missed...
CountArach
03-13-2009, 00:18
I'm disappointed, but I expected this sort of thing. I'm sure the journalist did as well.
It's a shoe :daisy:. How much would he have gotten of it was a cake. Guy should be released it's completely harmless he doesn't belong in jail.
Major Robert Dump
03-13-2009, 04:09
I bet if he knew he was going to get such a stiff penalty, he would have thrown something else, like a dildo or a handful of poo.
Folks, Iraqi law is very specific. Assaulting a head of state (meaning a non-Iraqi President/Prime Minister/Grand Chancellor/What-have-you) is punishable by up to fifteen years in prison. He got one fifth of the maximum sentence. Doesn't sound to me like the court was coming down hard on him.
However you want to spin it, he made a physical assault on a visiting head of state. Giving him a book deal and a suspended sentence would be a very bad thing.
Sarmatian
03-13-2009, 04:23
He did this in the wrong country.
Here in the USA, he'd have been given less than a year with most of that suspended and would probably have landed 3-4 paid interviews, a small book deal and a Reebok endorsement contract.
Actually he's a celebrity over there. I've read in the papers several months ago that some huge number of lawyers applied to represent him for free. I can't remember the exact number, but it was really huge, like 30,000 or more. One of the biggest shoe manufacturers in Turkey made a new model named after him. He'll cash it in, don't worry.
Hell, for the 10% of the amount he's gonna get, I'd be willing to spend those 3 years in jail instead of him.
I don't think 3 years in jail is too much. He did assault and insult a president of a foreign country visiting and insulted his own country in the process. Just because it was Bush and most people around the world found it cool doesn't change much. It's about the principle, not the person. And anyway, I don't think he's gonna be deprived of much in those 3 years in prison.
CountArach
03-13-2009, 04:25
He did assault and insult a president of a foreign country visiting and insulted his own country in the process.
What's wrong with insulting a head of state? :inquisitive:
Evil_Maniac From Mars
03-13-2009, 04:27
What's wrong with insulting a head of state? :inquisitive:
In a scenario like that, especially, it is inappropriate. You could make the argument that it undermines diplomacy.
It's about the principle, not the person.
Well yeah, throwing a shoe, 3 years in prison. That guy really doesn't belong in jail.
Major Robert Dump
03-13-2009, 04:55
That guy is an ungrateful degenerate who should have been thanking Bush because under Saddam Hussein people didn't even have shoes.
CountArach
03-13-2009, 05:13
In a scenario like that, especially, it is inappropriate. You could make the argument that it undermines diplomacy.
Do you honestly think that Bush then thought "Oh screw this - we're not going to reach XXXXX agreement with the Iraqi Government because some journalist not at all affiliated with the government threw a shoe at me"?
I don't honestly care whether or not it is inappropriate to insult a head of state - they are not, nor should they ever be, above criticism or the jibes of their fellow humans.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
03-13-2009, 05:35
Do you honestly think that Bush then thought "Oh screw this - we're not going to reach XXXXX agreement with the Iraqi Government because some journalist not at all affiliated with the government threw a shoe at me"?
Well, all you need to ask yourself is what the Yes, Prime Minister quote for this is. It happens to be that (paraphrased) according to the Foreign Office, every state dinner by a Prime Minister with a foreign dignitary undoes about two years worth of diplomatic work (unless prearranged by the Civil Service, of course ~;)) - so imagine what a shoe throw can do.
I don't honestly care whether or not it is inappropriate to insult a head of state - they are not, nor should they ever be, above criticism or the jibes of their fellow humans.
Not insulting doesn't mean that they're not above criticism, otherwise hordes of people would be arrested everytime a major world leader went anywhere.
I don't honestly care whether or not it is inappropriate to insult a head of state - they are not, nor should they ever be, above criticism or the jibes of their fellow humans.You don't think it could be a problem if at every press Q&A with a foreign leader in your country any malcontent who wanted to could come in and shout insults and throw things at them?
Was it a steel-toe boot, was there cement in the heel, was it a shoe bomb?
Have someone nail you in the face as hard as they can with a pair of men's dress shoes and see if it feels like an assault. Sure he missed, but even in the US many (most?) states don't distinguish between attempted assault or assault- if you intended to do it, you did it. In my state, even simple assault, a misdemeanor, can get you sentenced for up to two years. Now if it was a bomb, or other deadly weapon, you'd have an attempted assassination- in that case, he'd be looking at a lot more than just 3 yrs and rightly so.
I think his sentence is reasonable and I doubt he'll do all 3 years anyway.
a completely inoffensive name
03-13-2009, 07:59
...
Considering that those shoes COULD have seriously hurt the leader of the free world if they struck him in the temple or eye (which is a very real possibility), I think it is way too little. Not to mention the crime he did to his own country by representing them in such a way. I say death for this dirtbag.
CountArach
03-13-2009, 09:21
You don't think it could be a problem if at every press Q&A with a foreign leader in your country any malcontent who wanted to could come in and shout insults and throw things at them?
No problem with that at all. In fact it regularly used to be done when our former Prime Minister would go out on his morning walks. People didn't throw things, but he was called a lot of things that required a censor when they went to air.
3 years?! a bit much, IMO.
Yeah, 3 years too much.
Freedom of expression, speech - whatever you wanna say, he used it in a 'democracy'. So what if it was shoes thrown at a leader of a nation? So if I throw my shoes at someone on the street, I deserve 3 years jail time? Why the hell are leaders of nations more important? A citizen is a citizen, throwing shoes does NOT deserve jail time, in any democracy.
What it shoes really, is the grip the US has over the judicial and political system in Iraq and that really it is no real democracy. 3 years for making a political point, if we follow thta logic, lets lock up all of those in Iraq against the US invasion - oh dear, then there would be no country. The real criminal act in all this has been the actions of the US over the last 5 years, but fat chance getting them to sentencing.
On this logic, by the way, the woman who threw custard in our business secretary last week, should get what, 10 years? Because that not only hit him, but ruined his tie! :( But ah yes, we do live in a democracy, so she won't get any jail time.
Considering that those shoes COULD have seriously hurt the leader of the free world if they struck him in the temple or eye (which is a very real possibility), I think it is way too little. Not to mention the crime he did to his own country by representing them in such a way. I say death for this dirtbag.
If you base an argument purely on what might happen you can condone and construct such fancyful logic that anything becomes possible. It is the ultimate fools logic. But planes could crash?! OH NOES STOP THE AIRPORTS! But he could have got brushed by a shoe, LOCK THEM ALL UP! ~:rolleyes:
rory_20_uk
03-13-2009, 11:33
If you base an argument purely on what might happen you can condone and construct such fancyful logic that anything becomes possible. It is the ultimate fools logic. But planes could crash?! OH NOES STOP THE AIRPORTS! But he could have got brushed by a shoe, LOCK THEM ALL UP! ~:rolleyes:
:thumbsup: Making up the means to justify the ends. But at least in Iraq that's a well trodden road.
~:smoking:
Folks, Iraqi law is very specific. Assaulting a head of state (meaning a non-Iraqi President/Prime Minister/Grand Chancellor/What-have-you) is punishable by up to fifteen years in prison. He got one fifth of the maximum sentence. Doesn't sound to me like the court was coming down hard on him.
However you want to spin it, he made a physical assault on a visiting head of state. Giving him a book deal and a suspended sentence would be a very bad thing.
I think this post got overlooked a bit.
It is interessting, because I made this thread to see all the "western and enlightend" people here to point the finger at another state. Needless to say, I think 3 years are a lot, but different culture means different laws.
If you base an argument purely on what might happen you can condone and construct such fancyful logic that anything becomes possible. It is the ultimate fools logic. But planes could crash?! OH NOES STOP THE AIRPORTS! But he could have got brushed by a shoe, LOCK THEM ALL UP! ~:rolleyes:
Not at all, a better example would be if a terrorist highjacked a plane and crashed it into a school, but no one was hurt. Ok, he hurt no one, why punish him? The thing is that he tried to. I saw the video, you do not chuck shoes at someone that hard unless you really want to hurt them or do not care if they get hurt.
Sure it is a democracy, but the President represent EVERYONE in America, so an attack on him is an attack on everyone. Similarly, if the President does something illegal, then he is not acting on behalf of his people and deserves the same punishment that anyone else would get. Then of course do not forget that that was also an assault on fragile (and incredibly important) relationships between the two countries, so his assault was just as much against the Iraq government and people. If someone in my local school threw shoes at his teacher like that, I would make him pay through the nose, apologize, and spend the next 5 years of his life doing community service. That is something that could kill someone, and has to be taken VERY seriously. If he did anything like that again, he would get 5 years in prison.
When you are talking about the representative of the free world though, it is a whole 'nother ball park. He should be shot. If I were the Iraq government, I would have charged him with attempted murder, assault, and anything else I could get him on, then sent him to international courts for further sentencing. That would have made an example out of him, and showed extremists that the new government in Iraq is not one to be messed with. :whip:
Just a couple things in your post...
I saw the video, you do not chuck shoes at someone that hard unless you really want to hurt them or do not care if they get hurt.
Yep, you're right, of course! If you really want to hurt someone you throw your shoes, those knives, guns and bombs, are so overrated, hell why don't we just arm our soldiers with a few hearty slippers?
... He threw his shoes to make a political point, not to hurt someone. Hence when the statues of Sadam came down, shoes were used to hit him with, it was to show contempt and is a historical symbol in the Arab world of an insult - or they were actually trying to hurt Sadam, through voodoo, shoe killing? Right? Not to mention the things he said when he threw his shoes - go look them up.
That is something that could kill someone, and has to be taken VERY seriously. If he did anything like that again, he would get 5 years in prison.
Shoes don't kill, people do.
That would have made an example out of him, and showed extremists that the new government in Iraq is not one to be messed with.
Yep, to think extremists are now even spreading so far, they are mainstream news reporters! I wonder if Charles Gibson is secretly in talks with Al-Queda, i've had my suspisions.
When the whole country agrees with what he did and hold rallies of support and he is looked at like a national hero of the ordinary Iraqi people - that isn't extremism. No what the government here is cracking down is nothing more than free speech and the right of expression, but don't worry Iraq and the US have worked together before to stamp that out.
]
When you are talking about the representative of the free world though, it is a whole 'nother ball park. He should be shot. If I were the Iraq government, I would have charged him with attempted murder, assault, and anything else I could get him on, then sent him to international courts for further sentencing. That would have made an example out of him, and showed extremists that the new government in Iraq is not one to be messed with. :whip:
But it is a shoe. And he missed, why not just have a laugh.
I think this post got overlooked a bit.
My post was boring and factual, which is why it was rightly overlooked. Now if I had written something inflammatory and trollish, well, then we'd be in business. You would think that after all these years at the Org I would have learned my lesson.
Sarmatian
03-13-2009, 13:43
What's wrong with insulting a head of state? :inquisitive:
Well, it wrong insulting anyone and in most cases, punishable by law. Insulting your own head of state is pretty much like insulting anyone else, you may be fined and/or obliged to apologize publicly. But, insulting and assaulting head of state (or any other high official) of a foreign country on an official diplomatic visit is unacceptable. Your country invited that official and he must be protected and respected. Maybe three years is harsh, maybe it should have been 2.5 or 2 or whatever, but I'm not going to nitpick about it. Law is not really my area of expertise. Maybe he just picked a bad lawyer...
HoreTore
03-13-2009, 16:07
A man sentenced to three years in prison for expressing his freedom of speech.
Nice country you're building, America :dizzy2:
A question to those who support this idiocy:
Would you jail the brit who threw a shoe at Hu Jintao?
And Vuk, this guy is a moderate who's fed up with war. Not even close to an extremist. A handy reference, just for you:
Bomb belts: Extremist.
Shoes: something we all wear on our feet. Except when we're on the beach.
Reverend Joe
03-13-2009, 17:24
I'm sorry, but I have to agree with Xiahou on this one. I mean, I had a good laugh too, but the shoe could have physically harmed Bush, i.e. broken nose, detached retina, etc., whether the guy wanted to do that or not. Even if he was making a political statement, that's aggressive assault. It should be no surprise he's getting jail time.
Anyhow, if you want to make a political statement, it should be nonviolent, like standing up and yelling at the guy until you get kicked out. Or, you could just dunk them in Ranch Dressing:
Pat Buchanan Doused With Salad Dressing
KALAMAZOO, Mich. (AP) - Commentator and former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan cut short an appearance after an opponent of his conservative views doused him with salad dressing.
“Stop the bigotry!” the demonstrator shouted as he hurled the liquid Thursday night during the program at Western Michigan University. The incident came just two days after another noted conservative, William Kristol, was struck by a pie during an appearance at a college in Indiana.Buchanan
After he was hit, Buchanan cut short his question-and-answer session with the audience, saying, “Thank you all for coming, but I’m going to have to get my hair washed.”
The demonstrator, identified by authorities as a 24-year-old student at Kalamazoo Valley Community College, was arrested and faces a misdemeanor charge of disturbing the peace. He was released on a $100 cash bond, pending his April 14 arraignment.
“He could have faced a felony assault charge, but Pat Buchanan decided to not press that charge,” university spokesman Matt Kurz said.
I couldn't find any articles still existing about this, but you can find stuff about it on Google. It happened around the same time as the shoe. Point is, it was a fairly nonviolent, and certainly non-aggressive or -harmful, way of displaying protest, and it was funny as hell. (I wish I could find a video... the guy dumped one hell of a lot of dressing on Pat.)
LittleGrizzly
03-13-2009, 17:36
Folks, Iraqi law is very specific. Assaulting a head of state (meaning a non-Iraqi President/Prime Minister/Grand Chancellor/What-have-you) is punishable by up to fifteen years in prison. He got one fifth of the maximum sentence. Doesn't sound to me like the court was coming down hard on him.
If the maximum for assult is 15 years, what do you have to do to earn the full sentence ?
I would imagine you would have to actually make contact with the foriegn leader for one, and then for two im assuming you have to give them a decent bit of pain to get the 15 years, broken nose, black eyes. When you see someone and you know they have been properly beaten up...
Or would that come under a more serious charge ?
Anyway my point is if you can define what you would have to do to earn the maximum 15 years and then work backwards from that....
So is a full on assult (including actual contact and a good deal of pain) only five times worse than throwing a shoe and missing... I don't agree
Plus im not really sure about the whole stricter penalties for anything done to foriegn heads of state
HoreTore
03-13-2009, 17:55
I'm sorry, but I have to agree with Xiahou on this one. I mean, I had a good laugh too, but the shoe could have physically harmed Bush, i.e. broken nose, detached retina, etc., whether the guy wanted to do that or not. Even if he was making a political statement, that's aggressive assault. It should be no surprise he's getting jail time.
Anyhow, if you want to make a political statement, it should be nonviolent, like standing up and yelling at the guy until you get kicked out. Or, you could just dunk them in Ranch Dressing:
Oh come on, give me a break. Violent protest? Throwing a shoe? You want to send everyone who throws something at another person in jail for three years? Seriously?
I'm sorry, but I have to agree with Xiahou on this one. I mean, I had a good laugh too, but the shoe could have physically harmed Bush, i.e. broken nose, detached retina, etc., whether the guy wanted to do that or not. Even if he was making a political statement, that's aggressive assault. It should be no surprise he's getting jail time.
Anyhow, if you want to make a political statement, it should be nonviolent, like standing up and yelling at the guy until you get kicked out. Or, you could just dunk them in Ranch Dressing:
I couldn't find any articles still existing about this, but you can find stuff about it on Google. It happened around the same time as the shoe. Point is, it was a fairly nonviolent, and certainly non-aggressive or -harmful, way of displaying protest, and it was funny as hell. (I wish I could find a video... the guy dumped one hell of a lot of dressing on Pat.)
Thank you for the comparison. And to those of you who said otherwise, a shoe can seriously hurt someone. A friend of mine lost an eye because his gf jokingly threw her shoe at him to get his attention (not nearly as hard as this guy threw his shoes at Bush). They are married now, but he is eyeless. It did not strike him in the eye, but the temple, and the doctors say it could have killed him.
If you throw a shoe at someone, you gotta keep the consequences in mind (just like when you shoot at someone). It could result in no damage, or heavy damage. (and do not forget that Bush is an old-man).
Also, stop calling it free speech, it was not. Free speech is talking, writing, holding signs, etc, not assaulting people. We have the freedom to speak, not to assault people. Otherwise it would be called Free Expression of Emotion through Violent or Otherwise Means.
The guy threatened the safety (and possibly life) of a world leader, do not try to downplay it or make excuses for him.
LittleGrizzly
03-13-2009, 18:06
Thank you for the comparison. And to those of you who said otherwise, a shoe can seriously hurt someone. A friend of mine lost an eye because his gf jokingly threw her shoe at him to get his attention (not nearly as hard as this guy threw his shoes at Bush). They are married now, but he is eyeless. It did not strike him in the eye, but the temple, and the doctors say it could have killed him.
Damn thats nasty!!
How far do we take this 'he could have seriously hurt him line ?'
For example the people who love getting celebrity's with things like pies and salad dressing... well that could be dangerous, whilst temporarily blinded you could slip and fall (if not due to blindness then due to pie/salad dressing on the floor) and as we all know hit your head in the wrong place when you fall and it can kill you...
What about a student throwing a paper aeroplane at his teacher or a fellow student... you can have someones eye out with that you know...
Thank you for the comparison. And to those of you who said otherwise, a shoe can seriously hurt someone. A friend of mine lost an eye because his gf jokingly threw her shoe at him to get his attention (not nearly as hard as this guy threw his shoes at Bush). They are married now, but he is eyeless. It did not strike him in the eye, but the temple, and the doctors say it could have killed him.
Damn thats nasty!!
How far do we take this 'he could have seriously hurt him line ?'
For example the people who love getting celebrity's with things like pies and salad dressing... well that could be dangerous, whilst temporarily blinded you could slip and fall (if not due to blindness then due to pie/salad dressing on the floor) and as we all know hit your head in the wrong place when you fall and it can kill you...
What about a student throwing a paper aeroplane at his teacher or a fellow student... you can have someones eye out with that you know...
First of all, I think that it SHOULD be a crime to assault anyone in anyway. Pouring salad dressing and throwing pies at people is not funny, it is assault. It should be a crime punishable by a hefty enough fine to deter people from doing it.
A shoe is a different story though, you have a high probability of injuring someone with a shoe, esp when you throw them like he did. One thing I think I did not take into consideration is that his shoe is considerably lighter than the hikers I normally wear, but they could still easily cause injury being thrown like that, and I find it hard to believe that someone would be stupid enough not to know that.
And again, when you throw it at the leader of the free world, it is an entirely different matter. Just as throwing one at a policeman should carry a much heavier sentence, throwing one at the President should carry the highest. While I was not entirely serious about him being put to death, he seriously did deserve a heck of a lot more than 3 years in prison.
The only reason why we're having this entire discussion is because the shoe was aimed at George W. Bush. Had the shoe been thrown at someone more popular, there would have been little to no outrage about the sentence.
The only reason why we're having this entire discussion is because the shoe was aimed at George W. Bush. Had the shoe been thrown at someone more popular, there would have been little to no outrage about the sentence.
The problem is that the situation was handled incorrectly from the security detail he employed. Protocols dictate that security stand behind the president to see if any threats emerge in front so they can push him down and physically cover him. The detail was in front of him in the crowd watching, they couldnt see behind him.
Also one of the detail should have been in a position to immediately target the shoe thrower. The first shoe that flew a red dot should have appeared on his head, the moment his arm was raised for a second throw a few loud "pops" should have been heard and his head blown clear off.
At leasts thats how they used to do security protocols, back in the day, i mean love him or hate him he was the president of the U.S. After Regan, the changed the protocols to be able to use more deadly force if possible that might be altered on foriegn soil but I do believe diplomatic protocols dictate that the host nation either allow for the U.S. presidential security detail to be honored or have a similar response structure in place.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
03-13-2009, 18:35
It is the ultimate fools logic. But planes could crash?! OH NOES STOP THE AIRPORTS! But he could have got brushed by a shoe, LOCK THEM ALL UP! ~:rolleyes:
~:)
I love irony, and this made my day. Thanks.
HoreTore
03-13-2009, 18:35
The only reason why we're having this entire discussion is because the shoe was aimed at George W. Bush. Had the shoe been thrown at someone more popular, there would have been little to no outrage about the sentence.
Like how we're not discussing that the guy who threw his shoe at Hu Jintao didn't even get arrested?
We're having this discussion because he threw a shoe at Bush, yes. If he had thrown it at anyone else, nobody would've cared, because he wouldn't get arrested for it.
And stop the "this is assault"-nonsense. If he was convicted for assault, I may have seen your point. However, he is convicted for "insulting a foreign head of state". So I guess it would've been the same if he had just called Bush an idiot. This is a dictatorial law, stop making excuses for it.
And no, a bloody shoe is still a bloody shoe. I may kill myself driving later tonight, but I'll still take my car to work. Does that make me suicidal?
We're having this discussion because he threw a shoe at Bush, yes. If he had thrown it at anyone else, nobody would've cared, because he wouldn't get arrested for it.
Depends on who was getting shoed. If a shoa was thrown at, say, Ayatollah Al Sistani, the perp would already be dead. Why? Because Al Sistani is a highly esteemed figure.
LittleGrizzly
03-13-2009, 19:23
The only reason why we're having this entire discussion is because the shoe was aimed at George W. Bush.
I agree the fact that it is Bush that it happened to is why were talking about it, no one cares if jimmy down the road throws his shoe at some random person...
Had the shoe been thrown at someone more popular, there would have been little to no outrage about the sentence.
:rolleyes:
yes it must have slipped my mind that its part of our anti america anti gun anti religion crusade!
I wouldn't support 3 yeas for anyone for doing what the journalist was doing, if the shoe was thrown at me i would be in court myself arguing that the sentence is obverly harsh and unjust, just because you may be blinded to justice by your political views doesn't mean everyone else is...
The only reason why we're having this entire discussion is because the shoe was aimed at George W. Bush.
I agree the fact that it is Bush that it happened to is why were talking about it, no one cares if jimmy down the road throws his shoe at some random person...
Had the shoe been thrown at someone more popular, there would have been little to no outrage about the sentence.
:rolleyes:
yes it must have slipped my mind that its part of our anti america anti gun anti religion crusade!
I wouldn't support 3 yeas for anyone for doing what the journalist was doing, if the shoe was thrown at me i would be in court myself arguing that the sentence is obverly harsh and unjust, just because you may be blinded to justice by your political views doesn't mean everyone else is...
My opinion would be the same if he through the shoes at Obama (who I personally think is a dirtbag who has much less than good intentions for America), the point is that he did it at the US president, representative of the people of the US. That is not any small thing.
LittleGrizzly
03-13-2009, 19:50
My opinion would be the same if he through the shoes at Obama
and i wouldn't make such a silly statement saying "you wouldn't" without at least some kind of proof...
the point is that he did it at the US president, representative of the people of the US. That is not any small thing.
Well i don't think the fact he's a representative of America should make a difference, i do see the logic behind harsher sentences if it's done to a foriegn leader... though i don't agree with it... i think...
HoreTore
03-13-2009, 20:05
My opinion would be the same if he through the shoes at Obama (who I personally think is a dirtbag who has much less than good intentions for America), the point is that he did it at the US president, representative of the people of the US. That is not any small thing.
What if he burned/desecrated your flag?
Sheogorath
03-13-2009, 20:07
A man sentenced to three years in prison for expressing his freedom of speech.
Nice country you're building, America :dizzy2:
A question to those who support this idiocy:
Would you jail the brit who threw a shoe at Hu Jintao?
And Vuk, this guy is a moderate who's fed up with war. Not even close to an extremist. A handy reference, just for you:
Bomb belts: Extremist.
Shoes: something we all wear on our feet. Except when we're on the beach.
I'm going to go to the UK and throw shoes at Brown. Then I'll go to France and throw shoes at Sarkozy. Then I'll go to Russia and throw shoes at Putin.
Then I'll got to Siberia. I probably wont get any shoes there.
What if he burned/desecrated your flag?
As despicable as that would be, the flag is not a person. So, burning the flag would be exercising free speech.
I'm going to go to the UK and throw shoes at Brown.
Screw Brown. Straight to the Buckigham palace and <hit. her majesty with that shoe. That'll get people upset in a real hurry.
LittleGrizzly
03-13-2009, 20:34
You would certainly get one or two of the right wing papers into a hissy fit...
Personally i wouldn't want someone to get 3 years for missing the queen with a shoe....
Now an actual <hit. with the shoe in hand is a little bit different...
Edit
For another incident to compare with....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/1555041.stm
The Crown Prosecution Service says neither man should face any charges for the fracas.
Wasn't just an egg throw either.... kept the egg in his hand and brought it down unto the deputy prime minister...
You would certainly get one or two of the right wing papers into a hissy fit...
Personally i wouldn't want someone to get 3 years for missing the queen with a shoe....
Now an actual <hit> with the shoe in hand is a little bit different...
No, it isn't. In both cases the intent is the same: to publicly humiliate a person. Whether or not the shoe actually connects is secondary. Either way, it is an assault on the person's dignity.
HoreTore
03-13-2009, 20:48
No, it isn't. In both cases the intent is the same: to publicly humiliate a person. Whether or not the shoe actually connects is secondary. Either way, it is an assault on the person's dignity.
And that, my good sir, is the point. Politicians like Bush, or royals like the Queen, have to have different standards for that. They simply have to accept that we get to treat them like utter crap(which a lot of them are :laugh4:). The right to humiliate those in power is one of the pillars of democracy.
Now, hurting them is not. We can't have leaders cowering in fear of physical abuse, that's not an issue. But they absolutely should live in fear of public humiliation. And come on; what he did was the latter, not the former. He threw that shoe to show his utter contempt, not to hurt Bush. And no, no matter what horror stories you may come up with, a shoe remains a shoe. It is not a lethal weapon nor a dangerous item. Yes, Bush might've gotten his eye poked out. He might also win the lottery. Or slip, fall and poke his eye out on one of those microphones he had in front of him.
For those people who worry about extreme consequences, this world must be a horrible place. We others are doing fine.
HoreTore
03-13-2009, 20:50
For another incident to compare with....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/1555041.stm
The Crown Prosecution Service says neither man should face any charges for the fracas.
Wasn't just an egg throw either.... kept the egg in his hand and brought it down unto the deputy prime minister...
OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111
DIDN'T HE REALIZE THAT EGG SHELL SHRAPNEL CAN BLIND A MAN?!?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??!?!?!??!?!?! Why didn't the security forces shot the EXTREMIST BABY-KILLING TERRORISTCOMMIE on the spot?!?!?!??!??!?!
LittleGrizzly
03-13-2009, 20:51
No, it isn't. In both cases the intent is the same
I would disagree, someone who keeps thier shoe in thier hand and deliberately walks up to the queen and hits her across the face with it is obviously intent on causing pain...
Unless when you say <hit> what you mean is a tap to the face without power behind it, which is just disrespectful rather than violent...
Whether or not the shoe actually connects is secondary.
I disagree entirely, the results of your action are highly important and is a big consideration we make with regards to sentencing... you almost always get a worse sentence if you successfully carry out whatever you were trying...
attempted murder for example...
LittleGrizzly
03-13-2009, 20:54
DIDN'T HE REALIZE THAT EGG SHELL SHRAPNEL CAN BLIND A MAN?!?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??!?!?!??!?!?!
Also, assuming it was a raw egg there is a chance if he accidently swallowed some he could have got salmonella...
Its only when you really get into the what if's that you see how dangerous any situation could be...
Ands thats why its not good to base punishments on a worst case sceanrio basis...
So guys, according to Vuk it's safest if we stop interviewing US presidents. I mean, the interviewer could slip and smash him across the face with a microphone. Very dangerous.
How about microwave ovens? I mean; the radiation is very dangerous. Do I need to go on?
Reverend Joe
03-14-2009, 01:06
People, come on.
He tried to hit the guy with a heavy leather shoe. Would you like me to walk up to you on the street and throw a shoe right at your face and break your nose with it? Because you can do that with the kind of shoe he was wearing. And would you feel better if I threw the shoe at you for deep cultural reasons? No. You would sue <me for everything I owned>.
Also, let me make this clear:
I DO NOT AGREE WITH VUK.
Sorry, dude, but I agreed with Xiahou, not you. I don't give a ******* if Bush was a world leader or not. I also don't give a ****** if throwing a shoe was somehow a meaningful gesture. The point is not the status of the man being attacked, the point is he could have seriously hurt somebody.
Now, if he had dunked Ranch Dressing all over Bush, I would be raising hell along with the rest of you, because getting jail time for that would be silly. But that shoe could have done actual damage. If you don't believe me, go buy a leather dress shoe and ask someone with good aim to throw it at you full force. Believe me, at the speed that thing was going it would have felt like a rock made of leather if it hit you.
And anyway, I doubt he will be suffering much in prison. Hell, he's probably a celebrity around there. And that's not mentioning the aforementioned shoe deal.
The Spartan (Returns)
03-14-2009, 01:08
FML. This guy was the very few things I ever looked up to.
Major Robert Dump
03-14-2009, 01:23
I'm sorry, but I have to agree with Xiahou on this one. I mean, I had a good laugh too, but the shoe could have physically harmed Bush, i.e. broken nose, detached retina, etc., whether the guy wanted to do that or not. Even if he was making a political statement, that's aggressive assault. It should be no surprise he's getting jail time.
Anyhow, if you want to make a political statement, it should be nonviolent, like standing up and yelling at the guy until you get kicked out. Or, you could just dunk them in Ranch Dressing:
I couldn't find any articles still existing about this, but you can find stuff about it on Google. It happened around the same time as the shoe. Point is, it was a fairly nonviolent, and certainly non-aggressive or -harmful, way of displaying protest, and it was funny as hell. (I wish I could find a video... the guy dumped one hell of a lot of dressing on Pat.)
no, Ranch dressing is high in fat, cholesterol and carbs. RANCH KILLS. The dressing assault should have been punished more harshly, even if Pat didn't want it. That criminal should be hung for insulting my dear ole Patty.
Reverend Joe
03-14-2009, 02:01
no, Ranch dressing is high in fat, cholesterol and carbs. RANCH KILLS. The dressing assault should have been punished more harshly, even if Pat didn't want it. That criminal should be hung for insulting my dear ole Patty.
MRD. *** **** it.
Ranch Dressing does not smash an eye.
Y'know, I'm gonna be honest here; I kinda wanted that shoe to hit Bush. I was actually frustrated at how well he ducked, and I even tried to defend the Iraqi's aim when the story first broke out of pure hatred. But it's assault. Too bad, but Assault lands you in prison in a modern society.
Just a thought, for those who believe the sentence was too harsh and/or unwarranted: Meaningful protest often means jail time. If you approve of Mister Shoe-thrower, why is it surprising/inappropriate for him to do his sentence? Given that the maximum sentence under Iraqi law is 15 years, it's not as though the court threw the book at him.
If you want to be a hero and throw shoes at power, well and good, but be prepared to take the consequences of your actions. Assaulting a head of state is a serious crime in Iraqi law. Deal with it.
HoreTore
03-14-2009, 09:35
Now, if he had dunked Ranch Dressing all over Bush, I would be raising hell along with the rest of you, because getting jail time for that would be silly. But that shoe could have done actual damage. If you don't believe me, go buy a leather dress shoe and ask someone with good aim to throw it at you full force. Believe me, at the speed that thing was going it would have felt like a rock made of leather if it hit you.
No. It could not and most certainly did not injure Bush.
Yes, theoretically speaking, it could've broken his nose or whatever. But it just wouldn't have happened. I'd say it would've been a million to one shot. Kinda like saying that you're suicidal if you drive a car, because there is a chance you could kill yourself on your next trip to the mall.
And no, whatever you may think, Bush is not an ordinary guy. He was, at the time, the president of the united states, the most powerful of the powerful. I'm sorry, but the powerful do not need the same level of protection as an ordinary citizen.
And I can assure you, that if I went downtown right now, took off my shoe and threw it at the first person I saw, I would definitely not face any kind of jail time. I might get a punch in the face if I threw it at the wrong guy. I would most likely be approached by the police and get asked what the heck I'm doing. I might have had to wait while the police checks if I'm an escaped mental pasient.
But there's not a snowballs chance in hell that I would go to jail or face any kind of legal action whatsoever. None. Zero. Nada. Nothing. Absolutely no way.
Why, you might ask? Because I live in a democracy. A free nation. A nation where I'm not forced to please a tyrannical master. In other words, a country which is the exact opposite of what the US is creating in Iraq.
HoreTore
03-14-2009, 09:47
Assaulting a head of state is a serious crime in Iraqi law. Deal with it.
Nice one, Lemur. "Oh, so your country is fast-tracking to a brutal and oppressive regime with tyrannical laws? Quit your whining you hippie, like I could care about how you're treated."
Why is "Assaulting a head of state a serious crime in Iraqi law"? Because:
A: Being extremely polite and kind(ie. more than countries without a law like this, including, I would hope, most of europe) to foreigners and perhaps especially their leaders is a fundamental pillar in Iraqi culture, or
B: because they've written a law about it.
If the answer was A, you would've had a valid point.
This law, however, exists purely to protect US and other NATO officials on their travels in Iraq and avoid PR scandals like this one. And I'm sorry, but this reeks of tyranny.
Sillyness like this was abandoned here when we moved to democracy. Hopefully, if Obama withdraws the troops, Iraq can do the same.
Just a thought, for those who believe the sentence was too harsh and/or unwarranted: Meaningful protest often means jail time. If you approve of Mister Shoe-thrower, why is it surprising/inappropriate for him to do his sentence? Given that the maximum sentence under Iraqi law is 15 years, it's not as though the court threw the book at him.
If you want to be a hero and throw shoes at power, well and good, but be prepared to take the consequences of your actions. Assaulting a head of state is a serious crime in Iraqi law. Deal with it.
And in Saudi a 70 year old woman gets lashed, it's the law deal with it. He threw a shoe at a head of the state, so what really it ain't a grenade, just because it's an insult doesn't mean you should be offended, it was pretty damn hilarious. In the end it's just a shoe I think all this is incredibly silly. Fifteen years in jail for throwing a shoe is even sillier, if possible.
Seamus Fermanagh
03-14-2009, 14:28
.... This law, however, exists purely to protect US and other NATO officials on their travels in Iraq and avoid PR scandals like this one. And I'm sorry, but this reeks of tyranny.
Sillyness like this was abandoned here when we moved to democracy. Hopefully, if Obama withdraws the troops, Iraq can do the same.
A few points:
1. Yes, I think the law is a bit silly. A simple charge of attempted battery -- and the normal sentence for same in that culture -- seems more appropriate.
2. The law, as written, does not specify NATO officials, so it would provide equal protection to a Chinese ambassador etc.
3. "Sillyness like this" was NOT abandoned as NATO nations moved toward democratic republics in form. Attack ANY national leader -- even in your own country -- and you will find that you are in a world of hassle. Though there may exist no "special" law, the laws that do exist to prevent/punish such behavior will be rigorously enforced. And we often do have special laws about this in our countries as well. For example, here in the USA, anyone making a threat -- even in jest -- on the life of the President can be arrested for that threat alone (most aren't and are followed up only cursorily, but the Secret Service gains incredible investigative powers -- and you lose your rights to warrants etc. the moment such a threat is uttered). Since 1860, we've had 4 of our Presidents assassinated in office and attempts made on the lives of at least 4 others, wounding one and almost killing him. That's over 9% killed in action -- a high death rate overall (higher still if you subtract the 1st 15 occupants). The reason behind special laws and treatment is not fictitious, and the motivation is not to prevent the leader from being aware of criticism or to encourage her/him to view themselves as above the law.
4. I do not see how our withdrawal of troops from Iraq is a direct predicate to a more democratic Iraq. At best, Iraq's path towards NATO-esque levels of republicanism and personal rights is neither helped nor hindered by US troops. At worst, we still form part of a needed security umbrella to stave off civil war long enough so that the Iraqi people come to like the democratic republic they have formed enough not to tear in apart themselves. Please note that I have always viewed the creation of a largely stable, fairly democratic Iraq as "very difficult" rather than as an "impossible pipedream."
This law, however, exists purely to protect US and other NATO officials on their travels in Iraq and avoid PR scandals like this one.
Unless you can cite a source for this bit of tomfoolery, I 'm going to have to say:
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/1236090210351yx1.jpg
Gregoshi
03-14-2009, 19:22
Has anyone thought to check if there was a second shoeter on the grassy knoll? No one could have thrown two shoes that quickly, despite what the video shows. I think the tape was doctored...by someone.:inquisitive:
Evil_Maniac From Mars
03-14-2009, 19:26
Has anyone thought to check if there was a second shoeter on the grassy knoll? No one could have thrown two shoes that quickly, despite what the video shows. I think the tape was doctored...by someone.:inquisitive:
Evidently there was not one sole thrower.
Major Robert Dump
03-14-2009, 19:33
:laugh4:
His defense attorneys used the defense that he did not insult a visiting head of state because it happened in the Green Zone, and that the Green Zone belongs to the US, therefore Bush was not visiting. LOL
So all the debate about assault/not assault is moot and useless. In theory, he could have been charged for mooning Bush or telling vagina jokes about Barbara. Makes me wonder how it would work out if in was an insult in the visiting/home country but not vice versa. For example, in San Francisco mooning someone is actually a socially acceptable way of inviting someone on a date.
Reverend Joe
03-14-2009, 20:12
Well, I tried looking up the exact definition of "battery" under U.S. law, and it seems that this guy could not be charged with Battery because he made no actual contact; what this guy would have been charged with was "assault." Although the definitions and penalties vary by state, in general it seems this guy would have been given around 12 months in jail (NOT prison, note) and a fine of several thousand dollars. Of course, there's the possibility that the charge could have been upgraded to a felony, since assault upon a police officer apparently is considered a felony; but I can't find what potential charges there would be for this. I suspect it would mean spending time in a State or Federal prison instead of a Jail, but I doubt that the amount of time would actually reach 3 years.
Point is:
The punishment is pretty harsh, yes. However, Iraq is also just getting its act together after six years of chaos and its punishments, especially for high-profile cases, are going to be harsher in an attempt to instill discipline.
On the other hand, had the guy gotten all fifteen years it would be entirely unjust.
HoreTore
03-15-2009, 09:23
A few points:
1. Yes, I think the law is a bit silly. A simple charge of attempted battery -- and the normal sentence for same in that culture -- seems more appropriate.
2. The law, as written, does not specify NATO officials, so it would provide equal protection to a Chinese ambassador etc.
3. "Sillyness like this" was NOT abandoned as NATO nations moved toward democratic republics in form. Attack ANY national leader -- even in your own country -- and you will find that you are in a world of hassle. Though there may exist no "special" law, the laws that do exist to prevent/punish such behavior will be rigorously enforced. And we often do have special laws about this in our countries as well. For example, here in the USA, anyone making a threat -- even in jest -- on the life of the President can be arrested for that threat alone (most aren't and are followed up only cursorily, but the Secret Service gains incredible investigative powers -- and you lose your rights to warrants etc. the moment such a threat is uttered). Since 1860, we've had 4 of our Presidents assassinated in office and attempts made on the lives of at least 4 others, wounding one and almost killing him. That's over 9% killed in action -- a high death rate overall (higher still if you subtract the 1st 15 occupants). The reason behind special laws and treatment is not fictitious, and the motivation is not to prevent the leader from being aware of criticism or to encourage her/him to view themselves as above the law.
4. I do not see how our withdrawal of troops from Iraq is a direct predicate to a more democratic Iraq. At best, Iraq's path towards NATO-esque levels of republicanism and personal rights is neither helped nor hindered by US troops. At worst, we still form part of a needed security umbrella to stave off civil war long enough so that the Iraqi people come to like the democratic republic they have formed enough not to tear in apart themselves. Please note that I have always viewed the creation of a largely stable, fairly democratic Iraq as "very difficult" rather than as an "impossible pipedream."
1. Indeedily-doo-dely. All men are equal before the law - that principle should never, ever be abondoned when it comes to dealing with those in power.
2. It doesn't have to mention anything, all it has to do is exist.
3. I specified "hopefully all of Europe", I left out the US intentionally. I know stuff like this was abandoned here when the monarch(the swedish one) lost his powers. Don't know about anyone else though(and it's not like I care anyway).
4. Withdrawal of US troops is irrelevant. Withdrawal of US political pressure on Iraq is very relevant. As long as Washington dictates what the elected leaders of Iraq can do, there's no real democracy in Iraq. If or when they are left on their own, they can have a proper democracy(or return to a dictatorship, of course).
Unless you can cite a source for this bit of tomfoolery, I 'm going to have to say:
The US basically runs Iraq(democracy? never heard of it). US officials need special protection, because, well, let's say they're not that popular down there. Nobody cares about China though. The add some paranoia into it, and that'll be the result ~;)
Shaka_Khan
03-19-2009, 03:32
Actually he's a celebrity over there. I've read in the papers several months ago that some huge number of lawyers applied to represent him for free. I can't remember the exact number, but it was really huge, like 30,000 or more. One of the biggest shoe manufacturers in Turkey made a new model named after him. He'll cash it in, don't worry.
Hell, for the 10% of the amount he's gonna get, I'd be willing to spend those 3 years in jail instead of him.
I don't think 3 years in jail is too much. He did assault and insult a president of a foreign country visiting and insulted his own country in the process. Just because it was Bush and most people around the world found it cool doesn't change much. It's about the principle, not the person. And anyway, I don't think he's gonna be deprived of much in those 3 years in prison.
Also, the jail time will give him more celebrity status. The Canadians are already trying his idea on a large scale.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.