Bush administration arrests former human shields.

Oerdin · September 21, 2003, 14:04

In the run up to the last Gulf War there were several westerners who volunteered to go to Iraq and become human shields for the government of Saddam Hussan. Many of these people chained themselves to oil refineries, strategic highway bridges, hospitals, and even military facilities. These people claim they were simply excersizing their right to protest an "evil, unlawful, and unjust war of aggression" though the US government has decided to charge US citizens who went to Iraq as human shields with violating the Sanctions law Congress put in place at the beginning of the first gulf war. The sanctions law prohibites US citizens from visiting or spending money in Iraq except for a handful of carefully spelled out reasons. Violating the law carries a maximium penalty of 12 years in jail and a $1 million fine.

I'm thinking these people did the crime and now they need to do the time. They went to Iraq knowing they were breaking the law but they just felt the law didn't apply for them. What's your take on this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3126220.stm

Kuciwalker · September 21, 2003, 14:11

I think that if someone volunteers to be a human shield, we should let them. However, we also shouldn't care if they die while we bomb something.

chequita guevara · September 21, 2003, 14:13

Good luck finding an unbiased jury They'd have to exclude half the people who were opposed to the war, which then open up the very real complaint that the jury is convicting based on their beliefs and not the merits.

Kuciwalker · September 21, 2003, 14:15

Why not just shoot them? They wanted to die, why not let them?

Or even better, strap them to bombs we drop on enemy forces

chequita guevara · September 21, 2003, 14:17

God this regime makes me sick.

They didn't want to die, they wanted to stop war. It was naive and foolhardy, but it was not a desire to die.

DanS · September 21, 2003, 14:17

Do the crime, do the time. These shields probably even thought the law applied to them, but that the bad PR would be so great that they wouldn't be prosecuted. Poor choices.

Shi Huangdi · September 21, 2003, 14:17

If they want to stand up for their cause, they should go to jail for their beliefs.

Kuciwalker · September 21, 2003, 14:20

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
God this regime makes me sick.

They didn't want to die, they wanted to stop war. It was naive and foolhardy, but it was not a desire to die.

They put themselves next to a target so that we wouldn't kill it for fear of killing them. If they are WILLING to sit there, why shouldn't we kill them along with the target?

Buck Birdseed · September 21, 2003, 14:21

your country has laws prohibiting citizens from travelling abroad? *cougsovietunioncough*

Kuciwalker · September 21, 2003, 14:23

No, laws from travelling and bringing stuff (and spending money in) to certain regimes that are EXTREMELY HOSTILE to the US. Like Cuba, Iraq, etc. We have those countries embargoed, so allowing people to spend money there would make the embargo worthless.

Oerdin · September 21, 2003, 14:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
your country has laws prohibiting citizens from travelling abroad? *cougsovietunioncough*

Haven't you ever heard of sanctions? If you violate sanctions then you are breaking the law.

optimus2861 · September 21, 2003, 14:51

It's one thing to charge them with the crime of travelling to an embargoed country, but 12 years in prison?! How does that punishment fit the mere crime of travelling to somewhere that policy makers don't want you to go?

I can't help but wonder how many Americans have travelled to Cuba through Canada and not even been prosecuted, while of course the wannabe 'human shields' in Iraq (or at least this one in the article) will get the book thrown at them. Reeks of vengeful politics.

oedo · September 21, 2003, 14:56

political crime law, intended to criminalize people´s beliefs.

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
No, laws from travelling and bringing stuff (and spending money in) to certain regimes that are EXTREMELY HOSTILE to the US.

that´s a banana-formula. it´s in the nature, that peace activists go to "extremely hostlie" countries in events like this. after all, it´s about war or no war.

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin
Haven't you ever heard of sanctions? If you violate sanctions then you are breaking the law.

I don´t see, how an UN resolution could justify a jail-sentence against civilians. have you ever heard of the principle nulla poena sine lege?

KrazyHorse · September 21, 2003, 15:00

Not UN sanction law. US federal sanction law.

oedo · September 21, 2003, 15:06

ok, I see.
is there a link to that crap paper?

Du_Chateau · September 21, 2003, 15:19

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Not UN sanction law. US federal sanction law.

US Constitution trumps US federal sanction law. This will be an interesting case for the SCOTUS once they are convicted. An interesting issue also.

The Templar · September 21, 2003, 15:22

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
Do the crime, do the time. These shields probably even thought the law applied to them, but that the bad PR would be so great that they wouldn't be prosecuted. Poor choices.

Not on my federal tax dollar! Paying to prosecute and jail these morons during a deficit is not a great fiscal plan. Especially when states like Kentucky are letting real criminals out due to budgetary constraints. It's like the whole Tommy Chong/bong distribtor sweep a few months ago. What a waste of resources. The Bushies are more interested in cracking down on dissent (in this case, the dissenters are morons) than spending wisely.

What a ****ing joke ...

Stefu · September 21, 2003, 15:22

Oh no!

RUN, TEUVO THE HEROIC FINNISH HUMAN SHIELD! RUN LIKE THE WIND!

rev · September 21, 2003, 15:40

Halliburton makes money selling equipment to Iraq, and CEO **** Cheney becomes Vice President.

Morons send themselves to Iraq, become jail inmates.

I like.

Nubclear · September 21, 2003, 15:41

I cannot properly express how sickened I am by the Bush Administration. This is beyond twisted and I (foolishly) never thought that Bush and his cohorts would stoop to this level.
It seems as if the East is becoming the West.

Kuciwalker · September 21, 2003, 15:45

wtf?

They violate a federal law (one that has been around for over a decade) and you are sickened that they GET PUNISHED?!

Ming · September 21, 2003, 15:50

Yeah che... be sickened that criminals are arrested...

Do the crime, do the time... as it should be.

Nubclear · September 21, 2003, 15:52

Yes, because it is not morally applicable. We were posied to invade and they wanted to stop it. The Bush Administration wanted to make them an example, so they got this law and are now going to prosecute them.
It is quite transparent.

In the Soviet Union, many people did violate the Soviet Unions laws and were killed or sent to Siberia because of it. By your logic, we shouldn't be making a fit over it because technically they were violating Soviet law.

It is morally reprehensible, and should be condemned in the strongest possible words.

Kuciwalker · September 21, 2003, 15:54

Personally, I think it is treason. Or do you think that going over there and trying to help the military of a nation with which we are at war is NOT treason?

Nubclear · September 21, 2003, 15:57

I did not see them giving plans to Saddam Hussein.

I did not see them driving any tanks or becoming soldiers for Saddam Hussein.

All I saw was them forming human shields. They didn't aid the military of Saddam Hussein, they attempted to form a "moral block" that if US troops wanted to get past, they would have to kill the shields first.
And that is about as much treason as critisizing the government in a time of war.

MichaeltheGreat · September 21, 2003, 16:02

Unauthorized commercial trade in Iraq is one thing, the mere act of travel for what is essentially a political protest (the First Amendment doesn't address whether or not it's a misguided protest) is another.

These people are useless losers, but prosecuting them (I'm sure there must be another porn distributor out there

, or maybe we could go back to making an example of Martha Stewart

) is a waste of time and money.

At best they're anonymous losers, at worst, depending on your point of view, they're a waste of taxpayer dollars or a demonstration of the Bush admin's excesses.

The Mad Monk · September 21, 2003, 16:12

Quote:

Originally posted by optimus2861
It's one thing to charge them with the crime of travelling to an embargoed country, but 12 years in prison?! How does that punishment fit the mere crime of travelling to somewhere that policy makers don't want you to go?

I can't help but wonder how many Americans have travelled to Cuba through Canada and not even been prosecuted, while of course the wannabe 'human shields' in Iraq (or at least this one in the article) will get the book thrown at them. Reeks of vengeful politics.

They haven't even been tried, let alone sentenced. Twelve years is the maximum, and since that's probably included to nail smugglers and other bad guys, I doubt they're in danger of it.

Besides, I've always felt that slightly 'excessive' sentences are a better deterrent, anyway.

Sava · September 21, 2003, 16:18

If Bush arrests these people for going to Iraq and being human shields, is he going to arrest Cheney for selling Saddam oil equipment via Halliburton from 1997-2000?

I think we all know the answer.

I have no problem with people paying penalties for breaking the law. I just wish the law was applied to everyone.

MichaeltheGreat · September 21, 2003, 16:43

It was. Halliburton had a treasury clearance to trade with Iraq (remember who was in office) under exceptions granted by the UN authorized food for oil program.

Sorry, try harder next time.

Dis · September 21, 2003, 17:01

another reason to hate the current U.S. goverment