'Human shield' faces $10,000 fine

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Aug 10, 2003.

  1. macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    chicago
    #1
    http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/p...0030809&Kategori=NEWS&Lopenr=308090382&Ref=AR

    sweet! the gov't is going after (and threatening w/ jail time and/or wage garnishment) a woman who did something she believed in. meanwhile, halliburton gets off scot-free for all its dealings w/ iraq, under sanctions, while cheney was at the helm.
     
  2. macrumors 68040

    tazo

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2003
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest, Seattle, WA actually
    #2
    If you break the law you will be punished, in most states, if your not a minority, and this woman broke the law and as a result she is being punished.


    The way u stated it zim you were trying to implicate the govt. in taking away this woman's rights some how, when in actuality she just broke the law.
     
  3. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Location:
    London
    #3
    Yeh she broke the law, so she should be punished. I think what zim was getting at was that here treatment is inconsistent with the treatment of companies (with well placed friends) that also broke the same law.
     
  4. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Location:
    high-rise in beautiful bethesda
    #4
    According to Zim's logic, nobody should be punished for anything because Dick Cheney didn't get punished.

    If I were in charge, i'd take that woman on a tour of Iraq's prison camps and mass graves, and she could see what kind of regime she was defending. She could start by reading Amnesty International's report on Iraq. Then I'd take that $10k fine and give it to the victim's families.

    My boss at one of my first jobs was an Iraqi. When he was a teenager, he fought in the Iran-Iraq war. No, he didn't volunteer.
     
  5. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Location:
    London UK
    #5
    At least that would be equitable. How can you argue otherwise, I wonder? Surely you can't be suggesting that the wealthy with political influence are exempt from the law?
     
  6. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Location:
    East Midlands, UK
    #6
     
  7. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2003
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #7
    I think he was clearly implicating the govt in applying it's laws selectively, depending on campaign donations and how cosy you are with the Washington elite.

    No, according to Zim's logic all law-breakers should get punished equally.



    Why not take Bush Snr or Donald R instead? You could ask them why they supplied money, weapons and intelligence to Saddam. in the war your boss was forced to fight in.

    Saddam was just as much a ****** murderer back in the eighties when Donald R shook his hand and they took him off the list of terrorist supporting countries.

    Zim's law suggests that Saddam should have been treated like a criminal from day one.

    If a woman can be convicted and fined for following her conscience and risking her life to try protect civilian targets . How is it that the men who previously supported him and encouraged him, in a war that may have killed two million people and that your boss was lucky enough to survive, are able to hold the high offices they do? Holding their hands on their hearts, invoking God and bleating on about how evil Saddam is.

    Under Zim's law the all people would be held accountable for supporting a killer like Saddam.

    But lets face it, Zim's law is not even close to the real world.
     
  8. macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #8
    Here's a solution: make Halliburton pay $500,000 for every day they broke the sanctions. Fair? I'd be satisfied.
     
  9. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Location:
    high-rise in beautiful bethesda
    #9
    Oh, the old "we sold them some weapons during the cold war so we're responsible for everything they did from then on forever and ever" argument.

    People love to say that the US is imperialist, an empire, etc. It's not. We're a country, and have relationships with other countries, but we don't run any other countries, and we're not responsible for what they do. If Saddam kills a kurd, that's his fault, not ours. We didn't put Saddam in power, and we never made him kill anyone.

    People ask us for weapons, and we make a decision based on a lot of factors. Back in the 80s, the #1 factor was "are you fighting the Soviets?" If you were, or were by proxy (Iran was Soviet backed I believe), you got your weapons. Sure, we knew you might be a dictator, but the Soviets were pretty tough customers, and we needed all the help we could get. Not great, but that's the way it was. Nowadays, we generally have higher standards, but we just sold a lot of weapons to Pakistan, which isn't exactly a democracy, but they are helping us fight Al-Queda, so we turn a blind eye.

    But if Musharraf decides to use those weapons on his own people, that's his decision. Just like it was Saddam's decision to draft my ex-boss and send him out to kill Iranians. Rumsfeld never told him to.

    So go ahead and condemn Rumsfeld and Cheney for dealing with Saddam in the 80s if you like, but I hope you understand that having some common foreign policy objectives with a country twenty years ago isn't the same thing as being responsible for everything they do today.
     
  10. thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    chicago
    #10
    pinto's got it right -- i was pointing out the hypocrisy.

    who did more damage to the iraqi people? halliburton et. al. by breaking sanctions and selling materiel to hussein, or a 62 y.o. woman who hid herself in a hotel in iraq?

    another example is martha stewart. the feds wanna nail her on a, what was it?, $130k insider trade? fine -- but go after enron, MCI/WorldCom, et. al. for all the damage they've done. more hypocrisy.
     
  11. macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #11
    Actually, we did have something to do with Saddam being in power, and certainly, we had a lot to do with him staying in power.

    Higher standards? Ha, you've got to be kidding me. Our administration loves to go to war with brown people, while ignoring the pleas and requests of people in a country we helped create in the first place. High standards my arse.
     
  12. thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    chicago
    #12
    tristan = san felipe?
     
  13. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Location:
    London UK
    #13
    I was thinking the same thing ;)
     
  14. macrumors 68000

    3rdpath

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    2nd star on the right and straight till morning
    #14
    a violation of U.S. sanctions that prohibit American citizens from engaging in "virtually all direct or indirect commercial, financial or trade transactions with Iraq."

    lotsa luck proving that...

    commercial...nope

    financial....nada

    trade...hardly

    philosophical...certainly

    i don't remember the expression of a belief as being illegal....at least before the year 2000. i hope the aclu will step in and call this administration's bluff.

    make em prove her guilt...or is that still required in this country?
    :rolleyes:
     
  15. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Location:
    high-rise in beautiful bethesda
    #15
    Uh... I don't know who san felipe is, but my BS detector went off on this thread big time.

    "High standards my arse."

    So that's your whole argument. There's a nice little debate here about the consequences of supporting undemocratic regimes. You can take the side of expediency, and the benefits of furthering important foreign policy goals, like I do, or you can take a higher moral ground and say that it's always unacceptable, but then you have to try to justify isolationism. It would dovetail nicely into the woman's reasons for her passive resistance strategy and haliburton's dealings with Iraq.

    Of you can just write "high standards my arse" and something about little brown people. But then you'd come across as an intellectual lightweight with no cohesive argument. :)
     
  16. macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #16
    I think there maybe just a few problems with your analysis. First, Iran was, if possible, even more anti-communist and anti-Soviet than the Reagan/Bush administration. It was Iraq that had a history of dealing with the Soviets. Daddy Bush and his boys had a problem with the independence of the Iranian regime and the fact that they had humiliated the US with the taking of the embassy. We had controlled Iran through the Shah for decades after the CIA kicked out Mossedegh in the '50s (read Kim Roosevelt if you want to know about it). By the way, that's an example of imperialist ambition if ever there was one. In order to get back at the Ayatollah we found it convenient to help arm another brutal dictator in Iraq's Saddam. Such strategies have consequences and I don't mean "just" helping a brutal war go on in which millions were killed. There is also the blowback we get when a stronger, more bold Saddam wishes to flex his muscles in Kuwait and use our resources to kill US troops. Did we make him attack Kuwait - no, but it doesn't seem logical not to look at the consequences of a failed policy. "So go ahead and condemn Rumsfeld and Cheney for dealing with Saddam in the 80s if you like" - absolutely, I did then and I will now.
     
  17. macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #17
    Around the topic of the thread, let me see this woman who has first amendment rights to demonstrate her opinion and the right to travel is being prosecuted for what? Spending money on groceries while she was in Iraq? She sure as heck wasn't smuggling arms to Saddam - so what's the problem? This is a desperate and vindictive reach.
     
  18. thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    chicago
    #18
    ...to make an example out of someone who so openly defied the administration, imo.
     
  19. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Location:
    high-rise in beautiful bethesda
    #19
    You're right, I was off on the Soviet thing. We supported Iraq mainly because they were fighting the Iranians, and helping them was a way to hurt the Ayatollah.

    (There were some Iran-USSR ties, but that wasn't a strong factor, because there were Iraq-USSR ties too.)

    So you condemn Cheney and Rumsfeld for supporting a dictator. Let's say I'm with you. Supporting a brutal dictator is never good. Sure, sometimes there might be common foreign policy goals ('kill the ayatollah'), but let's say that those goals weren't important enough to justify supporting a brutal dictator. I'll go with you on that one.

    But if you condemn them for supporting a dictator, will you be consistent and condemn miss human shield for supporting the same dictator?
     
  20. thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    chicago
    #20
    put halliburton et. al. on trial, then she can be tried, too.

    "consistency is all i ask!" - tom stoppard
     
  21. macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #21
    If she was there to support Saddam then yes, I will condemn her. If, as I suspect, she was there to place her body in front of others in order to prevent a war, then she has my admiration and respect.
     
  22. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Location:
    London UK
    #22
    I think there is an important difference which mitigates in favour of the human shield.

    What she, and others, were doing was not motivated by greed or political expedience. Rather she was following a personal morality and seeking to prevent civilian casualties, and was prepared to put her own life at risk in the process.

    Now, you may find her views misguided or even wrong-minded, but that doesn't equate her with those that sought personal or political gain. Does it?
     
  23. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Location:
    high-rise in beautiful bethesda
    #23
    Yeah, but if she's there to prevent a war in which regime change is the main objective, then she's helping keep a brutal dictator in power. Why admire and respect that?

    Lofty, humanitarian motivations don't make your cause right. They just make you idealistic. :)
     
  24. thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    chicago
    #24
    i thought her and others' purpose was to protect civilian infrastructure, e.g. hospitals and schools.

    i remember seeing some pre-war interviews w/ such people already in iraq. more than one had said that, if the iraqis tried to get them to protect military targets, they'd leave.
     
  25. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Location:
    London UK
    #25
    Ah, so here we have it!

    "a war in which regime change is the main objective."

    It's interesting to see that people are now discarding even the pretense of WMD as the main justification for war. My, what a distance we've travelled in such a short time!
     

Share This Page