Muntazer al-Zaidi (Bush Shoe Thrower) Gets Three Years

[és:]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/12/iraqi-shoe-thrower-trial-resumes

The Iraqi journalist who hurled his shoes at George Bush, gaining instant hero status in much of the Arab world, has today been sentenced to three years in prison.

Muntazer al-Zaidi, 30, who worked for the al-Baghdadiya television channel, shouted "Long live Iraq" when the sentence was read out.

Zaidi had earlier pleaded not guilty and said his actions were a "natural response to the occupation".

He was given the three-year sentence for assaulting a foreign head of state during an official visit.

After the verdict was announced, his relatives erupted in anger, shouting that the decision was unjust and unfair. Some collapsed and had to be helped from the court. Others were forcibly removed by security forces as they shouted "Down with Bush" and "Long live Iraq".

"This judiciary is not just," Zaidi's brother Dargham said. Another brother, Uday, said the verdict was politically motivated. The journalist's sister, Ruqaiya, burst into tears, shouting: "Down with Maliki, the agent of the Americans," referring to the Iraqi prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki.

Zaidi's lawyers said he would appeal against the sentence. He had denied charges of aggression against a foreign head of state as his trial resumed after a three-week hiatus. Under a Saddam Hussein-era law, he could have faced up to 15 years in prison. Defence lawyers said the judge showed leniency because of Zaidi's age and clean record.

The journalist has been in custody since throwing his shoes at the then US president during a news conference on 14 December; Bush ducked to avoid being hit and Zaidi was bundled to the ground by guards.

During today's proceedings, Zaidi walked to the wooden pen in which defendants are kept and greeted the panel of three judges with a nod and a wave. He was dressed in a faded beige suit and though noticeably thinner than in his first court appearance he appeared fit and well.

The presiding judge, Abdul-Amir al-Rubaie, asked Zaidi whether he was innocent or guilty. "I am innocent," Zaidi said. "What I did was a natural response to the occupation."

Zaidi, who seemed nervous throughout, began to restate his defence from the first session of the trial, saying that he had not "intended to kill Bush or humiliate him". He explained that when he saw "the occupiers' president" smiling, he "imagined millions of Iraqis killed every moment at Bush's orders". His testimony was then interrupted by the judge, who told him to keep quiet unless he had anything new to say.

The trial took place under heavy guard, with armed policemen inside the court building and Iraqi soldiers outside. The courtroom was packed with relatives and supporters of the accused, as well as journalists, MPs and human rights observers. Several US diplomats were also reported to have turned up.

The trial began on 19 February but was adjourned until today as the judges considered a defence argument that the charge was not applicable because Bush was not in Baghdad on an official visit, having arrived unannounced without an invitation.

However, Rubaie read a response from the prime minister's office that said the visit had been official.

The chief defence lawyer, Dhia al-Saadi, demanded that the charge be dismissed, saying his client's action "was an expression of freedom and does not constitute a crime".

"It was an act of throwing a shoe and not a rocket," he said. "It was meant as an insult to the occupation."

In his previous court appearance in February, Zaidi, draped in an Iraqi flag, told the court how his anger had boiled over as he watched Bush "smiling that icy smile" while standing next to Maliki.

Bush spoke of "progress" in Iraq since 2003 and the leaders having dinner together.

"I thought about what the achievements were – killing about a million Iraqis," Zaidi said. "I saw only Bush and it was like something black in my eyes." The journalist took off his shoes and threw them at Bush. The throwing of shoes is considered an insult in the Muslim world. He also shouted: "It is the farewell kiss, you dog."

Some Iraqi officials regarded Zaidi's actions as an insult to the Iraqi state. Zaidi has been criticised by fellow Iraqi journalists, who said he had allowed his emotions to overcome his professionalism. However, many ordinary Iraqis said the journalist had already served his punishment and should be released.

A poll released today, commissioned by ABC News and the BBC, suggests 62% of Iraqis regard the shoe-thrower as a hero. Twenty-four percent of respondents saw him as a criminal who had assaulted a visiting head of state.

Outside the court, Mohammed Ali, a childhood friend of Zaidi, said: "His act was not a crime but one of defiance. When he is eventually released I expect Muntazer could change his career and become a politician."

Prior to the start of the trial, Zaidi claimed he had been beaten and tortured while in custody.

Utterly ridiculous amount of time. Three years for throwing a shoe but no time for killing hundreds, upon hundreds, upon hundreds, upon hundreds of thousands in Iraq.

[Burnsey]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/12/iraqi-shoe-thrower-trial-resumes



Utterly ridiculous amount of time. Three years for throwing a shoe but no time for killing hundreds, upon hundreds, upon hundreds, upon hundreds of thousands in Iraq.

I think the number is in the million, and this excludes the number of americans and soldiers from other countries killed, or the billions of dollars spent. Those shoes should have at least hit Bush.

[Dont Hurt Me]

They have it backwards, Bush should be the one in jail.

[yojitani]

I agree everything you've said es. My only contribution to this is that the man started something! Look at all the shoe throwing incidents since!

[Abstract]

That's all Bush gets for being a warlord?

[Macky-Mac]

it seems that Bush isn't the only president to have had a shoe tossed at him.....article from the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/06/shoe-protest-iran-ahmadinejad)

Shoe reportedly thrown at Iranian president Ahmadinejad
Protest allegedly happened as president waved to crowds from an open-top car in the Iranian city of Urumiye

When the Iraqi journalist, Muntazar al-Zaidi, hurled his shoes at the then-US president, George Bush, in December, Iranian officials declared him a hero and hailed his gesture as a mark of Islamic courage.

They were presumably less impressed this week when Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was similarly targeted during a visit to the north-western city of Urumiye.

Ahmadinejad found the shoe on the other foot as he waved to the crowd from an open-top car on his way to give a speech at a local stadium.

An Iranian website, Urumiye News, reported that a shoe was hurled at the president as his convoy drove through a central square. Security guards waded into the crowds but failed to find the culprit......

[Burnsey]

it seems that Bush isn't the only president to have had a shoe tossed at him.....article from the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/06/shoe-protest-iran-ahmadinejad)

ahahahaha serves him right, he's screwed his country over with his rhetoric and economic and social policies, all the while constantly focusing on the failings of other people/countries.

[és:]

I think the number is in the million, and this excludes the number of americans and soldiers from other countries kill

Yep, I normally (actually, always have previous) used the 'over a million' with various studies to back it up. I just thought using the many 'upon hundreds' sounded more dramatic :D

[pooky]

I disagree with the general sentiment here that this is too harsh because what Bush did was worse. That's not how justice works. I am in agreement that Bush's actions are horrible, but this shoe-throwing chap should not be judged less guilty based on that standard. If I murder someone who happens to be a murderer, that doesn't make me less of a murderer, nor does it mean I should receive less punishment.

That being said, three years sounds about right, but a little on the lenient side. Switch it around - were it the Iraqi PM, or Queen Elizabeth, or some other foreign head of state, visiting the U.S., I would expect (perhaps) a somewhat harsher punishment for the same crime.

Doesn't matter if he's tossing the shoe at Ghandi or Mugabe, it's still an assault.

[Queso]

Should have gone with green custard. That always gets a laugh :D

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/07Y0fJo1Rrfk1/610x.jpg

Seriously though, three months would be a far more reasonable amount. Nobody was hurt and it's even debatable whether the "assault" was pre-meditated.

[glocke12]

So its ok to assault a visiting head of state? There enough people out there that hate the US, it does not matter who is president to them. Suppose it was Obama that got shoes thrown at him, here in the states or elsewhere? Would three years still be too long?

[Blue Velvet]

Suppose it was Obama that got shoes thrown at him, here in the states or elsewhere? Would three years still be too long?

Jeez fella. Talk about over-sensitive, but in my opinion, yes.

Three months in an Iraqi prison or a fine would have done the trick as far as I'm concerned, but what do any of us know about Iraqi judicial and sentencing guidelines?

[glocke12]

Jeez fella. Talk about over-sensitive, but in my opinion, yes.

Three months in an Iraqi prison or a fine would have done the trick as far as I'm concerned, but what do any of us know about Iraqi judicial and sentencing guidelines?

Not being oversensitive. Just playing devils advocate.

If I was being oversensitive I would complain about how my post about Pelosi abusing the USAF mysteriously disappeared.

[Blue Velvet]

If I was being oversensitive I would complain about how my post about Pelosi abusing the USAF mysteriously disappeared.

Threads that are just info dumps based on BS where the OP doesn't even bother to engage or reply are a waste of everybody's time, and constitute trolling. And don't bother telling me you haven't been logged on to reply.

No more on this, thanks (http://guides.macrumors.com/Help:Forum_Rules#Warnings_and_Bannings).

[NT1440]

I disagree with the general sentiment here that this is too harsh because what Bush did was worse. That's not how justice works. I am in agreement that Bush's actions are horrible, but this shoe-throwing chap should not be judged less guilty based on that standard. If I murder someone who happens to be a murderer, that doesn't make me less of a murderer, nor does it mean I should receive less punishment.

That being said, three years sounds about right, but a little on the lenient side. Switch it around - were it the Iraqi PM, or Queen Elizabeth, or some other foreign head of state, visiting the U.S., I would expect (perhaps) a somewhat harsher punishment for the same crime.

Doesn't matter if he's tossing the shoe at Ghandi or Mugabe, it's still an assault.
HE THREW A GODDAMN SHOE!

HOW is that worthy of three years?!

Some people honestly continue to astound me.

[mkrishnan]

With any luck, he'll be treated like a hero in prison, and it won't be that bad....

Bush should still be held accountable for what he did, however.

[dukebound85]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/12/iraqi-shoe-thrower-trial-resumes



Utterly ridiculous amount of time. Three years for throwing a shoe but no time for killing hundreds, upon hundreds, upon hundreds, upon hundreds of thousands in Iraq.

too short of time

you dont attack political figures and expect to get off easy. i dont care who you are or what political figure he is

[NT1440]

too short of time

you dont attack political figures and expect to get off easy. i dont care who you are or what political figure he is

:rolleyes:

What an attack! He might have even gotten.... a bruise!

Its terrible that someones status can be used to get harsher penalties.

[glocke12]

too short of time

you dont attack political figures and expect to get off easy. i dont care who you are or what political figure he is

EXACTLY. It does not matter if it is Bush, Obama, or any other head of state.

[dukebound85]

:rolleyes:

What an attack! He might have even gotten.... a bruise!

Its terrible that someones status can be used to get harsher penalties.

just because you dislike bush doesnt mean this behavior should be allowed or that he should get off easy. it was an attack on a political head of state.

seriously:rolleyes:

[Blue Velvet]

If a reporter threw a shoe at a White House press conference at, say, the Chinese president (and missed), what do you think he'd get as punishment in the law courts of DC? About the same?

[NT1440]

just because you dislike bush doesnt mean this behavior should be allowed or that he should get off easy. it was an attack on a political head of state.

seriously:rolleyes:
I think 3 years for throwing a damn shoe is ridiculous regardless of who the hell it was.

Notice how I said nothing about bush.....

[leekohler]

With any luck, he'll be treated like a hero in prison, and it won't be that bad....

Bush should still be held accountable for what he did, however.

Agreed. If somebody's going to prison for throwing a shoe, surely the Bush administration should be investigated as well.

And again- three years is too long no matter who the head of state is- Bush, Obama, whoever.

[dukebound85]

I think 3 years for throwing a damn shoe is ridiculous regardless of who the hell it was.

Notice how I said nothing about bush.....

you are implying that an attack on an average joe should be treated the same as an attack on the President. please:rolleyes:


Its terrible that someones status can be used to get harsher penalties.

.....exactly, when its an attack on a President, expect to get harsher penalties than an attack on say billy bob....

[mkrishnan]

you dont attack political figures and expect to get off easy. i dont care who you are or what political figure he is

I do think there's a house of cards kind of argument that applies here that does not apply to other visits by heads of states.

al-Zaidi was punished by a puppet government that, even if it has some noble intentions, was still put in place in a way that is inconsistent with international law. George Bush was in Iraq as a visiting dignitary only as a result of overthrowing a government that would not have sanctioned his visit and replacing it with a government that would, a result that was achieved by engaging in war crimes. Under international law, Bush should not even have been allowed to continue to be a national dignitary, let alone be in Iraq. His presence there, as part of an unlawful occupation, should certainly play a mediating role in evaluating whether what al-Zaidi did could be considered a crime.

The analogous situation is not another situation where a dignitary from a state at peace visited a state with whom they were also at peace and had legal and civil relationships. The analogous situation would be much more like if we were unlawfully occupied by another nation prosecuting a war of aggression, and one of our civilians had attacked a leader of the occupation. It might certainly be prosecuted as a "crime" by the occupying force, but we would not accept it as a crime under prevailing notions of what constitutes crime.

[leekohler]

you are implying that an attack on an average joe should be treated the same as an attack on the President. please:rolleyes:

Come on duke, three years is absolute nonsense.

[BoyBach]

Should have gone with green custard. That always gets a laugh :D



Seeing that picture of Mandy getting 'slimed' reminds me of my brothers comment the day it happened: "It's a shame that the custard wasn't attached to an 'effing brick!"

Not that I condone any dessert or construction based violence towards such a fine and honourable politician as Mandelson. ;)

[dukebound85]

Come on duke, three years is absolute nonsense.

yea it should be longer imo

[glocke12]

If a reporter threw a shoe at a White House press conference at, say, the Chinese president (and missed), what do you think he'd get as punishment in the law courts of DC? About the same?

whatever sentence our court system gave him I would be happy with, whether it is 6 months or three years. You don't throw things (even if you miss) at visiting heads of state.

To be perfectly honest, you don't make any threatening moves towards a head of state unless you want to get shot. Whose to say some jumpy LEO or secret service officer wouldn't mistake that flying shoe for a grenade and shoot the thrower?

[leekohler]

yea it should be longer imo

Oh please. Given the circumstances, it should have been a lot less. And mkrishnan did a fine job of illustrating why.

[NT1440]

you are implying that an attack on an average joe should be treated the same as an attack on the President. please:rolleyes:



That I am. If someone threw a shoe at me personally, I'd be OUTRAGED if they got three years for it. I would even go so far as to see if I could somehow get the sentence reversed.

Its disgusting how twisted legal systems can get. It technically meets the definition of assault, but come on, its throwing a freaking shoe, my sister does that trying to be funny!

[dukebound85]

That I am. If someone threw a shoe at me personally, I'd be OUTRAGED if they got three years for it. I would even go so far as to see if I could somehow get the sentence reversed.

Its disgusting how twisted legal systems can get. It technically meets the definition of assault, but come on, its throwing a freaking shoe, my sister does that trying to be funny!

ok i really do expect more out of you....

let me repeat, an attack on a President is of much greater magnitude, seriousness than an attack on someone like you or me. As such, the penalties are greater:rolleyes:

whatever sentence our court system gave him I would be happy with, whether it is 6 months or three years. You don't throw things (even if you miss) at visiting heads of state.

To be perfectly honest, you don't make any threatening moves towards a head of state unless you want to get shot. Whose to say some jumpy LEO or secret service officer wouldn't mistake that flying shoe for a grenade and shoot the thrower?

exactly. i am curious why people cant see how an attack on the President is not of greater concern than a random person.

[leekohler]

That I am. If someone threw a shoe at me personally, I'd be OUTRAGED if they got three years for it. I would even go so far as to see if I could somehow get the sentence reversed.

Its disgusting how twisted legal systems can get. It technically meets the definition of assault, but come on, its throwing a freaking shoe, my sister does that trying to be funny!

Yep. All this over a shoe-throwing? My god, people must be bored.

[NT1440]

ok i really do expect more out of you....

let me repeat, an attack on a President is of much greater magnitude, seriousness than an attack on someone like you or me. As such, the penalties are greater:rolleyes:

And I find that disgusting, considering this attack would have resulted in literally no harm being done.

[BoyBach]

I wonder what Bush thinks about the sentence?

I wonder if Bush even knows or cares about the sentence?

[dukebound85]

And I find that disgusting, considering this attack would have resulted in literally no harm being done.

it. doesnt. matter.

you dont attack a political head of state without warranting harsh consequences for your actions. period

[NT1440]

it. doesnt. matter.

you dont attack a political head of state without warranting harsh consequences for your actions. period

Yes, yes it does matter. It just shows how sick and twisted legal systems are.

I wouldnt even call this a freaking attack! ITS A SHOE!

[dukebound85]

Yes, yes it does matter. It just shows how sick and twisted legal systems are.

I wouldnt even call this a freaking attack! ITS A SHOE!

sick and twisted? are you kidding me. its an appropriate punishment. i would have pressed for more time. why? because its the President. you dont throw shoes at a head of state and expect it to be treated as a regular offense. can you not understand that?

not an attack? then what the hell do you call it? a friendly action? lol. it was an attack.

[glocke12]

Yes, yes it does matter. It just shows how sick and twisted legal systems are.

I wouldnt even call this a freaking attack! ITS A SHOE!

It does not matter what it is. It is basically threatening a head of state.
People here in the states have recieved far longer sentences for even making threats that are nearly impossible to carry out against the president.

[BoyBach]

it. doesnt. matter.

you dont attack a political head of state without warranting harsh consequences for your actions. period


In 1992 whilst electioneering, our then Prime Minister had an egg thrown at him. The egg even drew blood. I don't recall the egg thrower being jailed.

This farcical sentence for the shoe thrower is political, not criminal.

[leekohler]

It does not matter what it is. It is basically threatening a head of state.
People here in the states have recieved far longer sentences for even making threats that are nearly impossible to carry out against the president.

You guys are taking this way to seriously. Come on. The guy threw a shoe. This is just silly.

[dukebound85]

You guys are taking this way to seriously. Come on. The guy threw a shoe. This is just silly.

ok, how about you go throw a pair of shoes at Obama and see just how serious the secret service and our government will handle it, if they dont shoot you first that is....

[NT1440]

You guys are taking this way to seriously. Come on. The guy threw a shoe. This is just silly.

No no no, it was at the president it was insulting, therefore he deserves jailtime!

Yea, i dont get it either. The mentality here honestly scares the crap out of me.

[NT1440]

ok, how about you go throw a pair of shoes at Obama and see just how serious the secret service and our government will handle it, if they dont shoot you first that is....

And it makes it better that the same thing can happen in the US? Really?

I'd think Obama himself would be outraged if someone who merely threw a shoe at him got 3 years.

[leekohler]

ok, how about you go throw a pair of shoes at Obama and see just how serious the secret service and our government will handle it, if they dont shoot you first that is....

Oh, for god's sake! The secret service isn't going to start firing shots in a room full of press agents over a shoe.

[dukebound85]

No no no, it was at the president it was insulting, therefore he deserves jailtime!


yea, being the President is a serious position and any hostile acts should be punished harshly


Yea, i dont get it either. The mentality here honestly scares the crap out of me.

im appalled at your mindset that the President is just "another" person

[glocke12]

You guys are taking this way to seriously. Come on. The guy threw a shoe. This is just silly.

I know your pretty sensible Lee, Im surprised you feel this way.

There are people here in the states that get longer sentences for making vague threats to the president, threats that could never be carried out.

It should not be surprising that this guy got three years....

[NT1440]

yea, being the President is a serious position and any hostile acts should be punished harshly



im appalled at your mindset that the President is just "another" person

Given the sheer sillyness of the crime, it doesnt matter who the hell a shoe could have connected with.

[leekohler]

I know your pretty sensible Lee, Im surprised you feel this way.

There are people here in the states that get longer sentences for making vague threats to the president, threats that could never be carried out.

It should not be surprising that this guy got three years....

I don't think those are reasonable either. Got a link for these sentences? I'm curious.

[NT1440]

I know your pretty sensible Lee, Im surprised you feel this way.

There are people here in the states that get longer sentences for making vague threats to the president, threats that could never be carried out.

It should not be surprising that this guy got three years....

That is sad as well.

[dukebound85]

And it makes it better that the same thing can happen in the US? Really?

I'd think Obama himself would be outraged if someone who merely threw a shoe at him got 3 years.

The President is not an average person. Understand that ok

Oh, for god's sake! The secret service isn't going to start firing shots in a room full of press agents over a shoe.

I beg to differ if they see someone about to throw something at the President in a hostile manner, they will act proactively and take the threat out by any means possible. to believe otherwise is very silly

[NT1440]

The President is not an average person. Understand that ok



I do understand it. It doesnt make it any less ridiculous. I would understand if there was some sort of actual potential significant harm, but again, it was a damn shoe.

Edit: You clearly have no understanding of the law in regards to using deadly force.

[dukebound85]

I do understand it. It doesnt make it any less ridiculous. I would understand if there was some sort of actual potential significant harm, but again, it was a damn shoe.

no you dont seem to grasp that a hostile act on the President should be treated in a more severe manner than an act on a random person.....


i dont care if it was a shoe, it was a hostile act against a head of state.

[NT1440]

no you dont seem to grasp that a hostile act on the President should be treated in a more severe manner than an act on a random person.....


i dont care if it was a shoe, it was a hostile act against a head of state.

I do grasp that but this sentence is pure BS. I don't give a damn that he was a head of state. IT WAS A SHOE.

[dukebound85]

I do grasp that but this sentence is pure BS. I don't give a damn that he was a head of state. IT WAS A SHOE.

and thats where your logic is flawed. him being a head of state is exactly why the punishment is harsh. if it wasnt against the President, but an average person, yea the punishment would not be 3 years.


doesnt matter if it was a shoe, you dont attack a head of state

[NT1440]

and thats where your logic is flawed. him being a head of state is exactly why the punishment is harsh


doesnt matter if it was a shoe, you dont attack a head of state

The punishment does not fit the crime by any stretch of the reasonable mind.

I can understand fully if they had taken drastic action while it was occurring, but after they figured out it what had happened the punishment is SEVERLY harsh.

[Macky-Mac]

the guy's lucky he didn't get shot by either president's security detail

[dukebound85]

The punishment does not fit the crime by any stretch of the reasonable mind.

I can understand fully if they had taken drastic action while it was occurring, but after they figured out it what had happened the punishment is SEVERLY harsh.

No the punishment is not harsh enough

[NT1440]

No the punishment is not harsh enough

I'm glad you beleive in justice so much:rolleyes:

[dukebound85]

I'm glad you beleive in justice so much:rolleyes:

i do

im sad you dont see the severity of the action

[NT1440]

im sad you dont see the severity of the action

Thats because I beleive in justice, you know, the thing where the punishment fits the crime.....

[dukebound85]

Thats because I beleive in justice, you know, the thing where the punishment fits the crime.....

as do i

an attack on a president is a serious crime.

[NT1440]

as do i

an attack on a president is a serious crime

You cannot just sum up every attack as an attack. The severity of the incident has to be considered, if you truly beleive in justice.

[Lord Blackadder]

The fact that he is still in one piece is probably due to the high-profile manner of his act. Had he done it behind closed doors and it didn't make it into the papers, he would probably have been quietly beaten to death somewhere and dumped into the Euphrates.

[dukebound85]

You cannot just sum up every attack as an attack. The severity of the incident has to be considered, if you truly beleive in justice.
it was considered and the punishment fits the offense. 3 years for trying to knock Bush's head off with 2 fast flying shoes is getting off light imo

he should be lucky for not getting a worse punishment

[NT1440]

it was and the punishment fits the offense. 3 years for trying to knock Bush's head off is getting off light imo



Oh yea, that shoes coulda decapitated him:rolleyes:

[dukebound85]

Oh yea, that shoes coulda decapitated him:rolleyes:

you really dont get it do you

its not about the shoes....

its about an action, most likely premeditated, against the President that makes it a serious offense that carries serious consequences

[Lord Blackadder]

its about an action against the President that makes it a serious offense

Do you think the same punishment would have been given had the incident taken place in the US, with an American journalist?

[NT1440]

you really dont get it do you

its not about the shoes....

its about an action against the President that makes it a serious offense

Thats the thing tho, we don't punish people based on the generality of the offense, THE DETAILS MATTER. I guess I could see three years if the object was heavy/a bit pointy but the fact remains it was a SHOE.

I get it perfectly. The world is a sick place full of overreactors and special treatments.

[dukebound85]

Do you think the same punishment would have been given had the incident taken place in the US, with an American journalist?
Yes

[NT1440]

Yes

Then you have no understanding of our legal system.

[dukebound85]

Thats the thing tho, we don't punish people based on the generality of the offense, THE DETAILS MATTER. I guess I could see three years if the object was heavy/a bit pointy but the fact remains it was a SHOE.

I get it perfectly. The world is a sick place full of overreactors and special treatments.

special treatments? overreactors? please, its the President of our country:rolleyes:

what details do you want? that it was a hostile action with the intent to injure Bush but its ok because they were just shoes?

[dukebound85]

Then you have no understanding of our legal system.

Oh please don't assume things you dont know.

[NT1440]

what details do you want? that it was a hostile action with the intent to injure Bush but its ok because they were just shoes?

No it doesnt make it ok, but the fact that almost no harm could/did result from it is a big factor here, well, to those of us who live rationally anyway.

[dukebound85]

No it doesnt make it ok, but the fact that almost no harm could/did result from it is a big factor here, well, to those of us who live rationally anyway.

you do realize the intent/thought of the action is just as important i hope

try writing a threatening letter to the President and see what happens, even if you have no plans to carry it out

try throwing shoes at Obama and see what the secret service will do. tell me you dont get arrested on the spot and then face significant jail time for being a threat of national security.

im suuuuuure they will all see it as "its ok since its just a shoe" lol

[NT1440]

you do realize the intent/thought of the action is just as important i hope

try writing a threatening letter to the President and see what happens, even if you have no plans to carry it out

try throwing shoes at Obama and see what the secret service will do

No its not JUST as important. Not in our legal system any way.

A person who writes a letter saying they are going to shoot up a bank isnt going to get the same punishment as someone who actually does. The damage is a HUGE considering factor when it comes to the law.

Edit: The secret service response AT THE TIME OF THE EVENT is IRRELEVENT to the PUNISHMENT.

[glocke12]

I don't think those are reasonable either. Got a link for these sentences? I'm curious.

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/131/131.F3d.16.97-1085.html

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/01/colorado-man-fa.html

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread441071/pg1

http://digg.com/odd_stuff/Man_Sentenced_for_Threatening_President_Bush_and_a_Judge?FC=PRCK2

[dukebound85]

No its not JUST as important. Not in our legal system any way.

A person who writes a letter saying they are going to shoot up a bank isnt going to get the same punishment as someone who actually does. The damage is a HUGE considering factor when it comes to the law.

ooook, if the President was harmed with the shoes, you can bet hed be facing more than 3 years in jail thats for sure

since he wasnt, he still facing the crime of trying to harm him which is serious as he acted on it in the first place

[NT1440]

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/131/131.F3d.16.97-1085.html

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/01/colorado-man-fa.html

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread441071/pg1

http://digg.com/odd_stuff/Man_Sentenced_for_Threatening_President_Bush_and_a_Judge?FC=PRCK2

Both of the people who were actually convicted (not "facing up to w/e, people almost always face up to way more than they recieve) only got the more severe punishment because they were already in jail for prior crimes and fell under the "career criminal" clause.

[NT1440]

ooook, if the President was harmed with the shoes, you can bet hed be facing more than 3 years in jail thats for sure

since he wasnt, he still facing the crime of trying to harm him which is serious as he acted on it in the first place

And in this country, the courts would factor in the fact that little to no harm would result. He wouldnt get off scott free, but he sure as hell wouldnt get 3 years (if he did then F$%K this twisted system).

[dukebound85]

And in this country, the courts would factor in the fact that little to no harm would result. He wouldnt get off scott free, but he sure as hell wouldnt get 3 years (if he did then F$%K this twisted system).

3 years for a threatening action on our President is pretty light

how is it twisted? its is our President we are talking about. Actions against him are those of national security

I know how serious our government deals with issues of national security. It's far from a lighthearted manner

[NT1440]

3 years for a threatening action on our President is pretty light

how is it twisted? its is our President we are talking about. Actions against him are those of national security

I know how serious our government deals with issues of national security. It's far from a light manner
What a threat!:rolleyes:

I can't deal with the irrationality anymore.

[dukebound85]

What a threat!:rolleyes:

I can't deal with the irrationality anymore.

yes, throwing shoes at a head of state is a threatening action

[Raid]

You guys are taking this way to seriously. Come on. The guy threw a shoe. This is just silly. While I kind of thought this was a funny Austin Powers nock off, it apparently is a very big insult in the Islamic mindset (BBC Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7783325.stm)).

A Iraqi ex-coworker of mine explained that the sole of a shoe is considered "the most filthy disgusting and lowly item one has in their possession", and even showing/displaying the sole of your shoe can be considered an insult. He said it's difficult to put into 'Western' terms as there's not really an western equivalent that has such significance.

Now do I think the sentence was harsh (even considering the assault was on a head-of-state)? Yes, but considering I haven't seen the ex-coworker since the sentence was handed down I'd rather listen to what he has to say about the whole thing before making my mind up.

[yg17]

While I kind of thought this was a funny Austin Powers nock off


Who throws a shoe? Honestly? You fight like a woman!

:D

[Lord Blackadder]

3 years for a threatening action on our President is pretty light.

While I do not condone attacks on people, it's important to remember that this incident took place for symbolic reasons rather than to accomplish the assault of a person.

If I read you right, you would not have blinked if the secret service had lit this man up for throwing shoes. Ten years, fifteen twenty years in an Iraqi prison would more likely satisfy you. Well you're entitled to your opinion, of course. But I disagree.

[Gelfin]

I defy anyone to prove I have any sympathy at all for the likes of our unlamented ex-President, but I've got to admit that in this case the righties have a point. You screw with a head of state and the legal system will make an example of you.

Frankly I am a little impressed the guy didn't disappear. It's not as if it would have taken more than an OctoMom or the mental breakdown of yet another drug-addled starlet to make the American people forget all about him.

[mactastic]

If you throw a shoe at ostensibly the most powerful person in the world, you better be prepared to do some hard time. I don't see 3 years as terribly out of line in this instance. Frankly, I would have expected longer if I were that shoe thrower -- and really would not have necessarily expected to live to see a court date. Actions have consequences. In the time it took that guy to huck two shoes, it would be difficult at best for a security agent to determine exactly how much of a threat he posed, and it would be easy to overreact. Who's to say someone hasn't found a way to rig a shoe with poisons? Security agents are trained to be paranoid.

On a related note, I wonder how long he'll actually spend in jail. A three-year sentence may be a sop to the west, and maybe he actually goes free in half the time or less as a way of currying favor with the majority of the populace who sees him as a hero. We'll see.

I wonder what the sentence would have been if it had been a pie...

[apsterling]

The only difference between Obama or Bush and any other man is their profile. They should be judged and treated in the same way as any person on the street. This country was built on those principles and it's a shame that people older than myself seem to have forgotten the underlying foundations to our country.

You throw a shoe at me you'll get at most a minor assault charge.
The same thing to Bush deserves 3 years? That's like making the statement that stealing a candy bar deserves 3 years. Its absurd that cases like these are being tried as such higher profile cases because of a man with the title of president. He's just another guy and this is his career. Even other high profile careers don't get this.

[skunk]

If you throw a shoe at ostensibly the most powerful person in the world, you better be prepared to do some hard time.I absolutely disagree. It was just a shoe. It wasn't poisoned, explosive or sharpened. The fact that it reached the target is the fault of the protection team, nobody else. The man should have been done for common assault and let off with a caution.

[és:]

So its ok to assault a visiting head of state?

Yes glocke12. That is what everybody is saying here. That it 'OK' to assault a head of state. We're all saying that it is fine.

There enough people out there that hate the US

In most cases their hatred is more than justified. The least you could expect, actually.

Suppose it was Obama that got shoes thrown at him, here in the states or elsewhere? Would three years still be too long?

Of course it would be too long. This has nothing to do with who the shoe was thrown at. Although, you are missing a vital difference between the two; Obama didn't launch an attack that killed over a million people. Bush did.

Threads that are just info dumps based on BS where the OP doesn't even bother to engage or reply are a waste of everybody's time, and constitute trolling. And don't bother telling me you haven't been logged on to reply.

No more on this, thanks (http://guides.macrumors.com/Help:Forum_Rules#Warnings_and_Bannings).

I don't want to reignite that. I just want to say a big thank you for the most sensible moderating I've seen in some time.

too short of time

I guess we'll have to accept that a few people are going to have different ideas of how long this guy should get but it seems that most people think taking away three years of somebody's life for throwing a shoe at the invading president is too harsh.

when its an attack on a President, expect to get harsher penalties than an attack on say billy bob....

Why? Why are people less important that the person that they put into power? Why is the president allowed to get away with mass murder.



its about an action, most likely premeditated, against the President that makes it a serious offense that carries serious consequences

Strange. An action, certainly premeditated, by the President makes it a serious offense that carries no serious consequences.

[Counterfit]

Everyone keeps saying "just a shoe". Those weren't freaking flip-flops he was throwing, they were some fairly hefty dress shoes. What do you think would happen if you got clocked in the nose by a well-hurled shoe?

[és:]

Everyone keeps saying "just a shoe". Those weren't freaking flip-flops he was throwing, they were some fairly hefty dress shoes.

The line 'it is just a shoe' is only really valid when looking at the length of the sentence.

[edesignuk]

The guy threw a shoe. Not a knife, not a bomb, not even a pointy stick. A shoe.

No where on earth should anyone get 3 years for throwing a shoe at another person.

Madness.

[és:]

The guy threw a shoe. Not a knife, not a bomb, not even a pointy stick. A shoe.

No where on earth should anyone get 3 years for throwing a shoe at another person.

Madness.

I have to agree. Whilst I think it was a more than justified action, throwing a shoe at the visiting head of state is obviously going to you into hot water. 3 years of prison time? You're 'avin a giraffe.

[iBlue]

Are you frickin shiiiiiitin' me? 3 years for that?

http://upc.edesignuk.com/uploads/smilies/megarolleyes2.gif

Iraqi justice system logic brought to you today by the letters W T and F

They didn't even hit old Bushster, FFS.

[Queso]

Yet another fine example of MR's wanting to avoid criticism of anything that has to do with the left.


Oh put your toys back in the pram. Why do the Right always see those on the Left as conspiring against them? It's so bloody childish :rolleyes:

Back on topic, the fact that people get locked up for longer in the USA for making impossible threats against the President says a lot about your so-called democracy. That's the sort of thing pre-revolution French kings used to get away with. It seems the founding fathers just replaced an hereditary monarchy with an elected one.

In the world's one true democracy (Switzerland) members of the government get no more legal protection than ordinary citizens. That is what democracy is supposed to be about, everyone having the same rights. I suspect you'll just dismiss this by calling the Swiss Communists though :p

[xUKHCx]

Quote:
And don't bother telling me you haven't been logged on to reply.


And I said before, I have my computer setup so that I am logged into MR all the time whether I am home or not.


Yet another fine example of MR's wanting to avoid criticism of anything that has to do with the left.

Oh puhlease..

Seeing as you want to constantly make things public and not follow the correct procedures as explained to you on a multitude of occassions I'll perhaps explain a few things (of course that have already been explained elsewhere).

Private questions, and questions about specific instances of moderation or member discipline, should be submitted via the Contact form.

Posts are deleted because they violate the forum rules.

If you have a post deleted it will be for a reason. Reposting the deleted post will also lead to deletion and possible further action.

Publicly complaining about moderation is frowned upon.

Stating that MacRumors has a policy favouring one side of the American Political spectrum is frankly ridiculous. An in that statement you are assuming that the moderators would agree and join up to those political ideals. I can say with 100% confidence that if there was a case that none of the moderators on the team would join up to it and we would all leave.

Complaining about action not being taken when you do not report a post is unhelpful in the extreme and only leads to more work by the moderators.

Thread is closed as it needs a clean up.

It may be some time before it is opened again.

[NT1440]

Iraqi justice system logic brought to you today by the letters W T and F



Didn't we at least partially bring this system in as well? Is this part of the "freedom" we are spreading?

Edit: SORRY! I didnt see this thread is off limits right now!

[obeygiant]

What Constitutes a "Threat?"

According to this law -- 18 USC Sec. 871 -- which reads, in part:

"...Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."

That covers a lot of deeds and statements. It gives the Secret Service a lot of latitude when conducting an investigation. There is a very good reason for this. Few jobs are more dangerous than President of the United States.

You can just let an incident which received worldwide attention go unpunished. Whether it was a shoe and rock or a bullet the fact that it didn't hit a sitting president is irrelevant. I'm kind of surprised the guy didn't get his hands cut off or something. If the shoe was thrown at Saddam you can bet shoe thrower and his family would suffer.

[skunk]

If the shoe was thrown at Saddam you can bet shoe thrower and his family would suffer.And this is your yardstick?

[NT1440]

You can just let an incident which received worldwide attention go unpunished. Whether it was a shoe and rock or a bullet the fact that it didn't hit a sitting president is irrelevant. I'm kind of surprised the guy didn't get his hands cut off or something. If the shoe was thrown at Saddam you can bet shoe thrower and his family would suffer.

No one said he should go unpunished! Where in this thread do you see that!?

What we are saying is LET THE PUNISHMENT FIT THE CRIME!

[oscillatewildly]

Weapon of Mass Disappointment. Now if the shoes were guided ...

The thrower would be free if he had been tried at Harriet Harman's Court of Public Opinion. If three years is the sentence he would have received for throwing shoes at anyone, fair enough.

Mandy - I thought he was going to use his connections to get mortgages for all of us.

USA - Is it the People serve the Country? Who does the President serve?

[mactastic]

I absolutely disagree. It was just a shoe. It wasn't poisoned, explosive or sharpened. The fact that it reached the target is the fault of the protection team, nobody else. The man should have been done for common assault and let off with a caution.
I don't have a lot of sympathy for those who commit unprovoked assault, even if I support their underlying grievance. Three years may be a little long for something like this, but it's certainly not beyond the pale.

And as I noted in my previous post, we'll see how long he actually serves. If the Iraqi justice system is anything like the American justice system, three years may mean six more months.

[NT1440]

And as I noted in my previous post, we'll see how long he actually serves. If the Iraqi justice system is anything like the American justice system, three years may mean six more months.

Thats the thing, its obviously not. Even tho its supposed to be based off of the freedom we supposedly spread.

[Macky-Mac]

......And as I noted in my previous post, we'll see how long he actually serves. If the Iraqi justice system is anything like the American justice system, three years may mean six more months.

I read in the news that he could have gotten as long as 15 years

he's appealing the sentence so we'll see what happens


....Back on topic, the fact that people get locked up for longer in the USA for making impossible threats against the President says a lot about your so-called democracy. That's the sort of thing pre-revolution French kings used to get away with. It seems the founding fathers just replaced an hereditary monarchy with an elected one.....

doesn't your post belong in the current French hating thread???

[és:]

If the shoe was thrown at Saddam you can bet shoe thrower and his family would suffer.

Sure. He probably would have been killed. What difference does that make?

[.Andy]

I don't have a lot of sympathy for those who commit unprovoked assault
Unprovoked?

[skunk]

I don't have a lot of sympathy for those who commit unprovoked assault, even if I support their underlying grievance. Three years may be a little long for something like this, but it's certainly not beyond the pale.It certainly wasn't unprovoked assault, but is it assault at all if the projectile misses? How does anybody know that he was aiming to hit Bush? Three years for throwing a shoe in someone's general direction is far beyond reasonable.

[Macky-Mac]

It certainly wasn't unprovoked assault, but is it assault at all if the projectile misses? How does anybody know that he was aiming to hit Bush? Three years for throwing a shoe in someone's general direction is far beyond reasonable.

maybe he's really getting 3 years for missing

[skunk]

maybe he's really getting 3 years for missingShould be thirty with no parole.

[dukebound85]

The only difference between Obama or Bush and any other man is their profile. They should be judged and treated in the same way as any person on the street. This country was built on those principles and it's a shame that people older than myself seem to have forgotten the underlying foundations to our country.

You throw a shoe at me you'll get at most a minor assault charge.
The same thing to Bush deserves 3 years? That's like making the statement that stealing a candy bar deserves 3 years. Its absurd that cases like these are being tried as such higher profile cases because of a man with the title of president. He's just another guy and this is his career. Even other high profile careers don't get this.

The President is worth substantially more to our country than you or me. That said, acts against him are dealt more severely than acts against me

You need to realize that Joe down the street is not as valuable as our President of this country:rolleyes:

The President is voted into a position of power by the citizens. Joe is not

[és:]

The President is voted into a position of power by the citizens. Joe is not

That statement makes no sense at all. The President was a plain Joe and was voted into a position of power. So he really is. Joe votes for Joe to be the President. The President is answerable to Joe because Joe voted him into power.


(I deserve a round of applause for how reserved I'm being lately)

[dukebound85]

That statement makes no sense at all.

you really dont understand that?

[NT1440]

The President is worth substantially more to our country than you or me. That said, acts against him are dealt more severely than acts against me

You need to realize that Joe down the street is not as valuable as our President of this country:rolleyes:

The President is voted into a position of power by the citizens. Joe is not
Yet he is supposed to be at the will of the people.....

[és:]

you really dont understand that?

I understand what you're saying, I just don't agree with it. I see that it makes no sense. I added more to the post.

[dukebound85]

Yet he is supposed to be at the will of the people.....

not directly he isn't.....

doesnt dispute the fact that the President is more valuable to a country than you or me and as such, acts against him are dealt with in a more serious manner

[.Andy]

The President is worth substantially more to our country than you or me. That said, acts against him are dealt more severely than acts against me

You need to realize that Joe down the street is not as valuable as our President of this country:rolleyes:

The President is voted into a position of power by the citizens. Joe is not
Should all law be applied depending on how "valuable" the victim is to the country?

[és:]

not directly he isn't.....

doesnt dispute the fact that the President is more valuable to a country than you or me and as such, acts against him are dealt with in a more serious manner

Laws are for everyone. It's pretty simple. Just because the Iraqi's are using Saddam era law to justify this sentence, it doesn't mean that they should be treated any differently.

One set of laws for everybody.

[dukebound85]

That statement makes no sense at all. The President was a plain Joe and was voted into a position of power. So he really is. Joe votes for Joe to be the President. The President is answerable to Joe because Joe voted him into power.


(I deserve a round of applause for how reserved I'm being lately)

right and your point is what exactly?

I'm not focusing on people, but rather the positions and their importance to our country. Acts against those positions will not be taken lightly

[dukebound85]

Should all law be applied depending on how "valuable" the victim is to the country?

they already are and have been to some extent

[és:]

right and your point is what exactly?

It is just a rebuttal of what you've said. The same question can be asked of this, frankly ridiculous, scale of value that you're putting on people. Is Bill Gates worth more to the country than the average Joe? Should he get greater protection under the law?

I wonder if the couple of people in this thread that are actually supporting this (and/or a harsher) sentence would be saying the same thing if it was Hitler visiting Israel and a Jew threw a shoe at him. Of course, Hitler was far worse than Bush but the same principle can be applied to both cases.

[skunk]

right and your point is what exactly?

I'm not focusing on people, but rather the positions and their importance to our country. Acts against those positions will not be taken lightlyApart from any other consideration, the alleged assault did not take place in your country. It took place in a country in which not one citizen had voted for Bush.

[dukebound85]

It is just a rebuttal of what you've said. The same question can be asked of this, frankly ridiculous, scale of value that you're putting on people. Is Bill Gates worth more to the country than the average Joe? Should he get greater protection under the law?

I wonder if the couple of people in this thread that are actually supporting this (and/or a harsher) sentence would be saying the same thing if it was Hitler visiting Israel and a Jew threw a shoe at him. Of course, Hitler was far worse than Bush but the same principle can be applied to both cases.

you dont attack foreign heads of state without facing more severe consequences

[és:]

Apart from any other consideration, the alleged assault did not take place in your country. It took place in a country in which not one citizen had voted for Bush.

Exactly. And to ad to that it was an Iraqi law, passed (I assume) by Iraqis in an Iraqi court.

[.Andy]

they already are and have been to some extent
That's not what I asked. Should all law be applied depending on how "valuable" the victim is to the country?

[és:]

you dont attack foreign heads of state without facing more severe consequences

Well, thank you for that assertion. Care to reply to my other points?

You don't attack foreign states without facing severe consequences, either. Well, you shouldn't be able too.

Now, I'm not saying that this guy should have had no action taken against him, even if I do feel that he was more than morally justified in taking a shot at him. What is being argued here is the lengthy prison sentence. It seems like only you and glocke are in agreement with it and can't really offer any credible argument other than your repeated 'more valuable' argument which, as far as I'm concerned, has been well and truly put to bed.

[dukebound85]

Well, thank you for that assertion.

You don't attack foreign states without facing severe consequences, either. Well, you shouldn't be able too.

Now, I'm not saying that this guy should have had no action taken against him, even if I do feel that he was more than morally justified in taking a shot at him. What is being argued here is the lengthy prison sentence. It seems like only you and glocke are in agreement with it and can't really offer any credible argument other than your repeated 'more valuable' argument which, as far as I'm concerned, has been well and truly put to bed.

i have the feeling people here believe I think Bush shouldnt be punished

He should be accountable for his actions without a doubt

HOWEVER, thats completely irrelevant to this

When countries host foreign heads of state, they do so under peaceful conditions and attacks against them should be dealt with severely

There are avenues for punishment for Bush. This was not one of them. Stop trying to justify it and lessen the severity

[és:]

i have the feeling people here believe I think Bush shouldnt be punished

He should be accountable for his actions without a doubt

HOWEVER, thats completely irrelevant to this

Why is it irrelevant. If one man can bomb a nation further back into the stone age, then why should a man - through anger at him for doing this great crime - gets three years in prison.

I've no need to justify it. Killing him would have been justifiable. Sickeningly wrong but justifiable. Throwing a shoe that didn't even hit him... that doesn't take any justification at all.

[dukebound85]

Why is it irrelevant. If one man can bomb a nation further back into the stone age, then why should a man - through anger at him for doing this great crime - gets three years in prison.

Why are a million people's lives less worthy than Bush's life.

see my post. i addressed this with the part you didnt quote

[.Andy]

see my post. i addressed this with the part you didnt quote
You haven't addressed this yet:

Should all law be applied depending on how "valuable" the victim is to the country?

[és:]

see my post. i addressed this with the part you didnt quote

I quoted all of your post. You edited it whilst I was typing. I've replied to it above.

It needs to justification and it wasn't severe. Stop trying to make a political protest into something much more than it actually is.

[dukebound85]

You haven't addressed this yet:

Should all law be applied depending on how "valuable" the victim is to the country?

no

however, issues pertaining to the assault/threats of governmental positions need to be dealt with in a different manner as they are political in nature

[.Andy]

no

however, issues pertaining to the assault/threats of governmental positions need to be dealt with in a different manner as they are political in nature
So a resounding no but yes :D!

[dukebound85]

I quoted all of your post. You edited it whilst I was typing. I've replied to it above.

It needs to justification and it wasn't severe. Stop trying to make a political protest into something much more than it actually is.

it wasnt a protest. it was an action with the intent to injure the President

Bush will have his judgment day. However, that man should have recognized that that is not the proper avenue. As such, he deserves to be punished for it

[dukebound85]

So a resounding no but yes :D!

do you not agree?

we have things such as diplomatic immunity and such already

[jonbravo77]

it wasnt a protest. it was an action with the intent to injure the President

Bush will have his judgment day. However, that man should have recognized that that is not the proper avenue. As such, he deserves to be punished for it

I'm going to have to agree. I am very much against GWB and in my heart would have really liked to have seen the shoe just smack him right in the face. But, there is civil disobedience and outright trying to assault someone. President or not this man should be punished for attempted assault with a possible deadly weapon, never know what kind of foot fungus the guy could have had, could be constituted as a biological assault.. :eek:

[és:]

it wasnt a protest.

That is exactly what it was. I don't often use wikipedia as a source but they have a good run down of what 'shoeing' is. The article is sourced with links to the BBC and the Times of London.

Shoeing, throwing shoes, showing the sole of one's shoe or using shoes to insult are forms of protest primarily associated with the Arab world.[2][3]
Posters of George W. Bush's face have long appeared through the Middle East with shoes attached to them, and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is known as Kundara, meaning "shoe".[3] Shoeing received recent attention after Muntadhar al-Zaidi threw his shoes at U.S. President George Bush in a December 14, 2008 press conference in Baghdad, Iraq. Since the al-Zaidi incident, copycat incidents in Europe and North America have been reported.

As such, he deserves to be punished for it
I don't think anybody is saying that he doesn't deserve to be punished. They have a problem with the unjust sentencing.

[.Andy]

do you not agree?
No I don't agree. I think the law should be equal for everyone irrespective of how valuable they are.

we have things such as diplomatic immunity and such already
We sure do have other laws yes. But we're not all diplomats when we're visiting other countries.

[és:]

do you not agree?

we have things such as diplomatic immunity and such already

So if an Iraqi ambassador came to your country to throw the shoe, that would have been acceptable?

[dukebound85]

So if an Iraqi ambassador came to your country to throw the shoe, that would have been acceptable?

to my understanding it would be legal

now if he did it to the President, it might be considered an act of war or grounds for sanctions or whatnot as those men would be representing their countries at that point

[és:]

to my understanding it would be legal


Let me rephrase it. If the Iraqi ambassador ... would that be acceptable to you.

This is really going OT, but your reasoning is getting less and less credible in my opinion. You're having to go down different avenues to try to justify this 'valuable' argument. Can't say it is working for me.

[dukebound85]

Let me rephrase it. If the Iraqi ambassador ... would that be acceptable to you.

This is really going OT, but your reasoning is getting less and less credible in my opinion. You're having to go down different avenues to try to justify this 'valuable' argument. Can't say it is working for me.

i have not gone down different avenues at all...

government officials are granted special exceptions. acts against them are of political nature and should be dealt with more severity than acts of citizens on citizens

stop twisting the scenario of a political figure throwing a shoe at a reporter. thats not what happened here. yes, we do have laws that protect the political figure, its known as diplomatic immunity. this does not extend to the average citizen

[és:]

i have not gone down different avenues at all...

You've gone from people of more value to the your country (which skunk rebuked very comprehensively) to diplomatic immunity - which has nothing to do with anything in this thread or this situation. You clearly have.

stop twisting the scenario of a political figure throwing a shoe at a reporter.

Can you show me where I've done this.

Diplomatic immunity has nothing to do with this story. It was, as I've shown you, a protest. A valid one, at that.

[dukebound85]

You've gone from people of more value to the your country (which skunk rebuked very comprehensively) to diplomatic immunity - which has nothing to do with anything in this thread or this situation. You clearly have.


the only reason i brought up diplomatic immunity was because .Andy asked me about should laws be equal for all

i suggest you read the thread and take it in context

it just enforces that actions committed and received by governmental figures is dealt with differently than the average citizen. i hardly see how that is deviating from what i have been saying
Can you show me where I've done this.
certainly
So if an Iraqi ambassador came to your country to throw the shoe, that would have been acceptable?

right there you are taking the action from the reporter and transposing it to "what if the Iraqi ambassador" did it

[NT1440]

When countries host foreign heads of state, they do so under peaceful conditions and attacks against them should be dealt with severely

There are avenues for punishment for Bush. This was not one of them. Stop trying to justify it and lessen the severity

Our feelings on Bush have NOTHING to do with this. I think the severity of the crime, THROWING A SHOE, while still technically assault, should NOT be on the same scale as other forms of assault like if he had landed a punch.

Courts don't just punish people based on the blanket term of the crime, the SPECIFICS and SEVERITY matter. I could see 3+ years if the man had punched Bush, but the fact remains that HE THREW A SHOE.

[dukebound85]

Our feelings on Bush have NOTHING to do with this. I think the severity of the crime, THROWING A SHOE, while still technically assault, should NOT be on the same scale as other forms of assault like if he had landed a punch.

Courts don't just punish people based on the blanket term of the crime, the SPECIFICS and SEVERITY matter. I could see 3+ years if the man had punched Bush, but the fact remains that HE THREW A SHOE.

attacking a President counts as severe in my book

oh and id reckon that if those shoes landed, it would hurt just as bad punch. rewatch the video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uIj0YvDBKE

how is that not an attack again?

[és:]

i suggest you read the thread and take it in context

No only have I read every post in the thread but I'm the person who started it. You're in danger of being made to look ridiculous. You're 'it wasn't a protest' line and the amount of other people's posts you're ignoring to put this agenda is becoming farcical.

right there you are taking the action from the reporter and transposing it to "what if the Iraqi ambassador" did it

Are you for real? You get more farcical by the post.

The shoe was thrown at the President. I'm not talking about anybody throwing shoes at the reporter. That didn't happen and that was never mentioned. Read the thread and put it in context. Any scenario clearly has the President being thrown at. Now, I'll ask you again. Show me where I said tht it was being thrown at a report or retract it. Just like you should retract and acknowledge the ridiculousness of the 'it wasn't a protest' line which shows utter ignorance of their culture and contempt for any fact based debate. Not to mention a lack of humility in the fact of disproval.

May I make one more suggestion? Don't make snobby remarks to me. It puts me on the defensive and you end up getting blasted away. It isn't the first time I've had to take a stand against you and I doubt it will be the last. It is becoming tedious.

[NT1440]

attacking a President counts as severe in my book


Yes it is an attack, but you cannot use such a broad term when deciding the punishment. An attack can range from something as silly as throwing a shoe which at most will cause a bruise, to physically beating the crap out of someone. Your efforts to characterize it in such a broad term shows that you don't seem to care about the nature of the attack at all.

[és:]

Yes it is an attack, but you cannot use such a broad term when deciding the punishment. An attack can range from something as silly as throwing a shoe which at most will cause a bruise, to physically beating the crap out of someone. Your efforts to characterize it in such a broad term shows that you don't seem to care about the nature of the attack at all.

It is just the last ditch attempt to make this act of insult and protest into something far worse than it really is.

[NT1440]

It is just the last ditch attempt to make this act of insult and protest into something far worse than it really is.

Wrong, its not last ditch, hes been doing it the whole thread.

[és:]

Wrong, its not last ditch, hes been doing it the whole thread.

Conceded.

[dukebound85]

No only have I read every post in the thread but I'm the person who started it. You're in danger of being made to look ridiculous. You're 'it wasn't a protest' line and the amount of other people's posts you're ignoring to put this agenda is becoming farcical.



Are you for real? You get more farcical by the post.

The shoe was thrown at the President. I'm not talking about anybody throwing shoes at the reporter. That didn't happen and that was never mentioned. Read the thread and put it in context. Any scenario clearly has the President being thrown at. Now, I'll ask you again. Show me where I said tht it was being thrown at a report or retract it. Just like you should retract and acknowledge the ridiculousness of the 'it wasn't a protest' line which shows utter ignorance of their culture and contempt for any fact based debate. Not to mention a lack of humility in the fact of disproval.

May I make one more suggestion? Don't make snobby remarks to me. It puts me on the defensive and you end up getting blasted away.

You're right, I just assumed by the line "what if the Iraqi Ambassador threw it", implied it was thrown at a reporter in your mythical scenario (you know, reversing the roles of the target and attacker)......I then further addressed the case if it were thrown against the President by the ambassador and what I thought would happen (groounds for sanctions or maybe act of war as they are at that point, representing their countries)

Now you are just making statements that my posts are "snobby", "farcial" while you are at the same time are condescending me to suit your ego. Good job. Looks who's the mature one

If you can't see how throwing shoes at a political figure should be treated more severely than another person, then you need to wake up. Evidence? sure, the man just got sentenced to 3 years. While many say it's unjust, it isn't. It just doesn't match their version of what they think is right. Plain and simple.

Culture or not, throwing shoes at a figurehead should not be tolerated:rolleyes: In this case, it wasn't

NT1440: Yes attacks are not all the same. However, you don't attack a political figure in any way without feeling the consequences.

[NT1440]

NT1440: Yes attacks are not all the same. However, you don't attack a political figure in any way without feeling the consequences.

As we have been saying the entire thread, YES he deserves some sort of penalty, but THREE YEARS OF HIS LIFE for THROWING A SHOE is beyond ridiculous.

Also, you can't just completely disregard the country's culture when considering this case, BECAUSE ITS A FORM OF PROTEST.

People here are egged/painted all the time, but its rarely considered an "attack". Why you flat out refuse to see the connection is beyond me.

[és:]

You're right, I just assumed by the line "what if the Iraqi Ambassador threw it", implied it was thrown at a reporter......

Thank you. And now for the ignorance surrounding arab culture, protests and shoe throwing?

Now you are just making statements that my posts are "snobby"

Telling me to read my own thread and put it into context is, at best, snobby.

"farcial"

Some of the things you've said and some of the counter points that you've ignored make it farcical. That has nothing to do with maturity, just a respect for other people's intelligence in this area.

Evidence? sure, the man just got sentenced to 3 years.

Well, you're the last person that I'd expect to put so much faith in a law introduced in Saddam's Iraq. Anything to try to worm your way out. What is next, I ask myself.

While many say it's unjust, it isn't.

Why didn't you just tell us that at the beginning. We could have kept the entire thread to one post and one reply with that sort of factual assertion.

Culture or not, throwing shoes at a figurehead should not be tolerated:rolleyes:
For the millionth time, nobody is saying it should be tolerated. You should read the thread and... well, you get the idea.

Anyway, it is after 11 here and I've got to get up early. Be sure that I'll reply in the morning.

[dukebound85]

As we have been saying the entire thread, YES he deserves some sort of penalty, but THREE YEARS OF HIS LIFE for THROWING A SHOE is beyond ridiculous.


I disagree. If he would have connected, I'd wager he'd be in much more trouble. I belive 3 years is the light sentence

[
Also, you can't just completely disregard the country's culture when considering this case, BECAUSE ITS A FORM OF PROTEST.

Does not excuse throwing your shoes at the President with the intent to knock him on his back. Many cultures view that as aggressive behavior known as an attack.


People here are egged/painted all the time, but its rarely considered an "attack". Why you flat out refuse to see the connection is beyond me.

What reality you living on?

For one, show me that happening to a political leader here...like the President

Also, show me how those actions are politically oriented...as the targets aren't politicians. You have no connection to be made between a political attack and Joe getting an egg thrown at him

[NT1440]

I disagree. If he would have connected, I'd wager he'd be in much more trouble. I belive 3 years is the light sentence

[

Does not excuse throwing your shoes at the President with the intent to knock him on his back. Many cultures view that as aggressive behavior known as an attack.




First off, you don't sentence on the "what if" statements, you deal with the FACTS OF WHAT HAPPENED.

Second, I'm sooooo glad you are a mind reader, because if you hadn't read his mind I would have just ignorantly assumed he was showing his disrespect in a commonly expressed manor in the Arab world. Again, thank you SO much for clearing this up.:rolleyes:

[dukebound85]

Telling me to read my own thread and put it into context is, at best, snobby.



Because creating a thread means something right? lol

Well, you're the last person that I'd expect to put so much faith in a law introduced in Saddam's Iraq. Anything to try to worm your way out. What is next, I ask myself.

Wow, doesn't even warrant a response as it's completely irrelevant


Why didn't you just tell us that at the beginning. We could have kept the entire thread to one post and one reply with that sort of factual assertion.

The fact is the reality

For the millionth time, nobody is saying it should be tolerated. You should read the thread and... well, you get the idea.

Oh but there are many saying it should be treated the same as if the shoe was thrown at a brother. People can't seem to recognize that the President is a more serious position and actions committed against him warrant more serious consequences.

Again, if you read your thread with my posts, that would be clear

Anyway, it is after 11 here and I've got to get up early. Be sure that I'll reply in the morning.
Sleep well

[dukebound85]

First off, you don't sentence on the "what if" statements, you deal with the FACTS OF WHAT HAPPENED.

Second, I'm sooooo glad you are a mind reader, because if you hadn't read his mind I would have just ignorantly assumed he was showing his disrespect in a commonly expressed manor in the Arab world. Again, thank you SO much for clearing this up.:rolleyes:

The fact is he got 3 years for missing the President with his throws. There's your reality. Deal with it

How you like them apples

[NT1440]

The fact is he got 3 years for missing the President with his throws. There's your reality. Deal with it

How you like them apples
The entire point of this thread is that the sentence is ridiculous, regardless of it actually happening, if thats the best you have to defend it ("it happened") then I honestly have nothing more to say to you.

[és:]

Also, show me how those actions are politically oriented...as the targets aren't politicians. You have no connection to be made between a political attack and Joe getting an egg thrown at him

Ah, man. You're beyond the pale, my friend.

List of people that have been pied (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_have_been_pied)

I'm sure there are many more lists of people that have been egged or gunged or whatever. I'll let you find them, you've got another post (which ignores several points that embarrass you) for me to rip apart.

[dukebound85]

The entire point of this thread is that the sentence is ridiculous, regardless of it actually happening, if thats the best you have to defend it ("it happened") then I honestly have nothing more to say to you.

But for some reason if I bring a what if statement concerning the sentence he would have gotten if he connected, you dismiss it

ok, whatever suits your reality right:rolleyes:

I disagree. If he would have connected, I'd wager he'd be in much more trouble. I belive 3 years is the light sentence


First off, you don't sentence on the "what if" statements, you deal with the FACTS OF WHAT HAPPENED.

[dukebound85]

Ah, man. You're beyond the pale, my friend.

List of people that have been pied (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_have_been_pied)

I'm sure there are many more lists of people that have been egged or gunged or whatever. I'll let you find them, you've got another post (which ignores several points that embarrass you) for me to rip apart.
and how many of those are political in nature?

[és:]

Because creating a thread means something right? lol

It means I've read it.

Wow, doesn't even warrant a response as it's completely irrelevant

You are using a judgement from a ridiculous law in a country that isn't known for it's up to date justice system to justify your argument. Of course it isn't worth a response, frankly I'm surprised you've not omitted it out of pure embarrassment like you have with many other points in this thread.

The fact is the reality

What fact is that? The one where you say you're right and everybody else is wrong. Damn, you could get elected president with that sort of thinking.

Oh but there are many saying it should be treated the same as if the shoe was thrown at a brother. People can't seem to recognize that the President is a more serious position and actions committed against him warrant more serious consequences.

Again, if you read your thread with my posts, that would be clear

Again, I've read it. I, like 90+% of other people in this thread, simply don't agree with it. You saying it doesn't make it any more credible. Many would argue that the opposite is true.

Sleep well

It has become worth while staying up.

[és:]

and how many of those are political in nature?

Many. It is mainly used for political purposes. It is well known.

[NT1440]

But for some reason if I bring a what if statement concerning the sentence he would have gotten if he connected, you dismiss it

ok, whatever suits your reality right:rolleyes:

Because the reality is he DIDNT connect. I live in THIS reality.

Your "it happened so it must be right" attitude is disgusting. By that logic a woman who is sentenced to jailtime in the Arab world for being raped is perfectly OK, because after all, it happened.

[dukebound85]

Because the reality is he DIDNT connect. I live in THIS reality.

Your "it happened so it must be right" attitude is disgusting. By that logic a woman who is sentenced to jailtime in the Arab world for being raped is perfectly OK, because after all, it happened.

No my attitude is that the punishment fits the crime for throwing shoes at the President with the intent to hit him. You think it's too harsh. I say it's not

Stop stating my position wrongly

[NT1440]

The fact is he got 3 years for missing the President with his throws. There's your reality. Deal with it

How you like them apples

That is what I was referring to, completely flawed and disgusting logic if I've ever seen it. YOU were the one that said it, not me.

[dukebound85]

That is what I was referring to, completely flawed and disgusting logic if I've ever seen it. YOU were the one that said it, not me.

So just because I find the punishment acceptable due to it involving attacking the President, you find it disgusting

You're right, only your opinion counts and isn't disgusting. Accept my apologies...

[és:]

That is what I was referring to, completely flawed and disgusting logic if I've ever seen it. YOU were the one that said it, not me.

Them apples taste sweet, even if I didn't get her number.

[Blue Velvet]

On a much lighter note:

It's not what you'd call chic. Clunky, square-toed, shiny leather upper, thick polyurethane sole. Available in black, brown, camel, sand. All cotton-lined. Surprisingly light: a mere 300g each, says the man. Designed and produced for comfort, above all. Particularly popular in the Middle East.

Mr Ramazan Baydan himself designed this model, No 271, in 1999. Since then it's never been out of production. "We design up to 300 models a year," says Gokhan Pektas, export manager for Baydan Shoes of Kucukcekmece, Istanbul, over plentiful sweet tea. "We produce maybe 150. No other shoe has stayed 10 years in the range."

For the first few years of its life, Model 271, with added sheepskin lining, was big in Russia and Ukraine. As that market dried up, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon took over. Keenly priced at just $27 (£19) a pair wholesale, maybe $40 retail, the shoe has been a steady earner. Baydan's Iraqi distributor could be relied on for a good 20,000 pairs a year, the rest of the region took the same again, and a few thousand sold in the US.

Then on 14 December last year an Iraqi TV reporter called Muntazer al-Zaidi stood up in the middle of a news conference in Baghdad, yelled "This is a gift from the Iraqis. This is the farewell kiss, you dog," and lobbed two battered 271s at the head of George W Bush.

Neither reached its target, the then US president proving a nimble ducker. But Model 271, first spotted on the endlessly repeated video footage by Baydan's man in Baghdad, later positively ID'd by the designer himself ("There's no doubt," he says. "How could I mistake my own model? It's like my child") has become a star among shoes.

Orders have poured in from Iraq, the rest of the Arab world, Europe (90,000 pairs) and the US. Individual purchases via the company's website are booming, says Baydan, a sleek and smiling figure at his polished wood desk. "People want them as a souvenir for themselves, or as gifts," he says. "It's quite a thing."

In all, the company reckons orders are well over 500% up on last year. Pretty soon, some 450,000 extra pairs of Model 271 will be walking this earth, from Baghdad to Birmingham. Baydan has taken on subcontractors to help the 25 workers in his own factory. "We are just humble shoemakers. We know nothing about politics," insists Baydan, a tad unconvincingly. "Above all, we see such a success as an honour for our shoe."

He may know nothing of politics, but he knows a business opportunity when he sees one. Model 271 has been hastily renamed Model Bye Bye Bush, and the trade name registered. A smart gold label is now glued to the shoe's tongue.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/14/muntazer-al-zaidi

:D

[marbles]

Not read all except first post...just dropped in from the forum spy...

Three years for throwing a shoe - that's insane,.... your not serious , right?

[mkrishnan]

On a much lighter note:

Now I'm never one to approve of rubber-soled dress shoes or anything comfortable and unfashionable like that, but I approve of this story. :)

[Lord Blackadder]

On a much lighter note:

I want a pair. Seriously.

[Blue Velvet]

I want a pair. Seriously.


http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2009-01-14-BBB3.JPG


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-sussman/bye-bye-bush-the-shoe_b_157740.html

[marbles]

On a much lighter note:



:D

That's a great story, fair play to the man

[NT1440]

Any physics wizzes here?

How much damage can a mere 300g do when thrown by a human?

[Lord Blackadder]

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2009-01-14-BBB3.JPG


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-sussman/bye-bye-bush-the-shoe_b_157740.html

I just checked their website, online sales don't seem to be working.

Any physics wizzes here?

How much damage can a mere 300g do when thrown by a human?

A baseball weighs about half as much, and there is at least one documented case of a fatality resulting from a batter being hit in the head by a pitch. However, a shoe would travel more slowly due to wind resistance - and, depending on which part hit you first (sole or upper), it could heavily affect the damage potential.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Its ironic throw a shoe get 3 years, start a war, kill a hundred thousand or more, torture, destroy a economy, all while missing the original target Bin Laden and get your own library. Amazing.

[apsterling]

The fact remains that were this any other target in the US, you'd get at most a small fine, and possibly a civil suit.

If that, there's far worse fights at my school that get no charges, and this guy gets three years? Absurd.

[obeygiant]

The fact remains that were this any other target in the US, you'd get at most a small fine, and possibly a civil suit.


Is there any difference between a sitting president of the united states and say you or me?

There is.


If this man just showed his shoe Bush and yelled at him that would be a protest. Since he threw the shoe(s) at Bush and intended to cause harm this is another matter entirely. The punishment fits the crime. End of line.

[remmy]

Is there any difference between a sitting president of the united states and say you or me?

There is.


If this man just showed his shoe Bush and yelled at him that would be a protest. Since he threw the shoe(s) at Bush and intended to cause harm this is another matter entirely. The punishment fits the crime. End of line.

Is there a difference? He is meant to be human, mortal yet for 4 years the president seems to be treated like a God by many.

Is this just politics showing of how much the US owns Iraqis and how dare they complain.

[skunk]

Since he threw the shoe(s) at Bush and intended to cause harm this is another matter entirely. The punishment fits the crime. End of line.As so often, you fail to address points already made in following your agenda: you claim that he "intended to cause harm" to Bush. He threw a pair of shoes in Bush's general direction, not a bomb, a knife or a ballistically stable projectile of any sort. If he had intended to cause more serious injury than a bruise at worst, don't you think he would have chosen a more deadly or at least accurate weapon? The action was quite obviously symbolic. To claim otherwise is actually worse than disingenuous, it is frankly dishonest.

[obeygiant]

As so often, you fail to address points already made in following your agenda: you claim that he "intended to cause harm" to Bush. He threw a pair of shoes in Bush's general direction, not a bomb, a knife or a ballistically stable projectile of any sort. If he had intended to cause more serious injury than a bruise at worst, don't you think he would have chosen a more deadly or at least accurate weapon? The action was quite obviously symbolic. To claim otherwise is actually worse than disingenuous, it is frankly dishonest.

Dishonest?

Assault and/or intent to commit battery (from bruise to broken nose) should have certain consequences do you think? Given the high profile nature of the target I think some punishment is in order. There must be something on the books in regards to a standard punishment for this type of thing ending in "...up to three years in jail." Whatever anyone's personal idea of what constitutes "assault" there are laws to deal with this and they vary from state to state and country to country.
Besides, this egyptian journalist will most likely get out in half the time.

[skunk]

Dishonest?

Assault and/or intent to commit battery (from bruise to broken nose) should have certain consequences do you think?Yes, dishonest. You are painting the incident with an inappropriately lurid palette. The intent may well have been to make Bush duck at worst. "Intent to commit battery" is hardly a viable charge. The consequence should have been that Bush declined to press charges, and that the Iraqis left it at that.

[Macky-Mac]

Yes, dishonest......

that's simply name calling on your part.....you can disagree with obeygiant's view without turning to such trash talk

[NT1440]

that's simply name calling on your part.....you can disagree with obeygiant's view without turning to such trash talk

:eek:

WOW, I really cannot beleive someone just called a well thought out post with reasoning backing it up trash talk.

[skunk]

that's simply name calling on your part.....you can disagree with obeygiant's view without turning to such trash talkIt most certainly is not "trash talk". To characterise the symbolic throwing of a shoe as attempted battery is playing fast and loose with definitions.

[dukebound85]

As so often, you fail to address points already made in following your agenda: you claim that he "intended to cause harm" to Bush. He threw a pair of shoes in Bush's general direction, not a bomb, a knife or a ballistically stable projectile of any sort.

general direction? its apparent he was trying to knock bush in the head...

more dangerous item? do you not think they screen everyone hard core at meeting like that? shoes were the only decent options he could use...

If he had intended to cause more serious injury than a bruise at worst, don't you think he would have chosen a more deadly or at least accurate weapon? The action was quite obviously symbolic. To claim otherwise is actually worse than disingenuous, it is frankly dishonest.

It's symbolic if he just shouted at Bush and then threw his shoe at the ground and walked off or something

Its an attack when he tried to hit Bush in the head with 2 shoes.

To claim otherwise is "dishonest"

[dukebound85]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uIj0YvDBKE

[NT1440]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uIj0YvDBKE

Wow, he threw the shoes in the general direction of the 40%ish percent of the president that wasn't behind a podium.

Clearly an evil man who deserves 3 years of his life taken away.....for throwing a shoe...

[bartelby]

.....for throwing a shoe...

Not one but 2 shoes!

The b*stard should have got 6 years!
;)

[NT1440]

Not one but 2 shoes!

The b*stard should have got 6 years!
;)

Of course! What was I thinking, i havent factored in the second shoe. Life without parol should be fitting....

[obeygiant]

Merely showing ones shoe in arab culture is a symbolic insult. If Bush hadn't ducked it would have hit him in the face. Just watch the video.

[Blue Velvet]

I had to close this thread last night for a short time. There have also been some post reports and it's clear that there is no middle ground of agreement amongst some who definitely should know better.

Enough.