Geez, did no one see my post above? Without a declaration of war by Congress this is no treason. If the US didn’t go after John Walker Lindh for treason, and he actually carried a weapon against the US, then even less could it be said this old lady committed treason.
UnuMondo
Oh, I completely agree UnuMondo, the Bush Admin. can’t have it both ways. They can’t decide to dispense with the hassle of getting Congress to officially declare war, and then act as if war has been officially declared.
She should be charged with violating a U.S. sanction (which is what she’s being charged with) and not treason (which she is not being charged with).
The human shields were not acting against the US miltary, that’s just a load of crap. They were there to protect civilian populations only. Obviously this is just petty vindictiveness by an administration that can’t stand any kind of oppostition or criticism. I think the “law” is being speciously applied for political motivations. The persecution of this compassionate, courageous, heroic woman is just another sign that this is the most anti-democtrtaic, anti-American administration in US history.
Cite that anyone ever did this? Not there would be anything wrong with it if they did. It would be a comparable action to those who blocked the tanks at Tiananmen Square. It would not harm any US troops and it would prevent them from doing any harm.
quote]
Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution of the United States of America reads as follows:
What this woman did was not park her ass on the roof of a hospital, or in an orphanage, but in an oil refinery which does (did?) supply fuel for the Iraqi army. Her presence, while described as a protest, was intended to provide passive protection (akin to a wall or concertina wire fence) to the building and prevent its destruction. The only difference between her actions and a S-6 missile battery is that the missile can kill the Allied pilot. She was placed in defence of a strategic logistical site, and if you think that isn’t adhering to an enemy and providing them aid, then you’ve never heard the US War College’s cliche that logistics win wars.
The fact that she isn’t being tried for treason (which, may I remind you can carry a death sentence) is one helluva sign that the government isn’t exactly trying to go offing its own people.
Oh, and for you folks who think that treason is only tied to war…http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/burr/burraccount.html The trial of Aaron Burr. Oh, and don’t forget our own modern Julius and Ethel Rosenberg.
Her action did not place any lives in danger and was not treasonable under any rational definition. I don’t think we need to kill old ladies for passively resisting illegal military actions.
Oh, and Diogenes, you are sooo a fucktard (oops, off to the pit with me!)
[quote]
Cite that anyone ever did this? Not there would be anything wrong with it if they did. It would be a comparable action to those who blocked the tanks at Tiananmen Square. It would not harm any US troops and it would prevent them from doing any harm.[/quote/
I can’t cite it, but your acertation (SIC?) that it wouldn’t harm US troops IGNORES the fact that it was a fucking OIL REFINERY which was manufacturing, OH MY GOD!, fuel oils (I’ve read from CNN, don’t have the link, that it’s primary outputs were gasoline and CM-grade deisel (a soviet production grade fuel comprable to American and Western European #2 deisel.)) Now, Diogenes, what do you suppose that fuel oil is going to be used for when your nation-state is being invaded? Do you think that it’ll be loaded into tanker-trucks and driven to your local petrol station? Do you think it’s going to go into your Caddy or Yugo or Zil truck? Or do you think that the GODDAMNED IRAQI ARMY might just have a vested interest in putting the gas in its Zil’s and deisel in its tanks?
It would not do a US trooper any fucking harm? Have you ever seen what a fucking tank can do to a human being? Are you that stupid to think that the Iraqi army and Saddam Fucking Hussein cared if those American shields were killed?
Also, take a look at http://www.humanshields.org/news/Iraq/deportation.htm The guy who ran the fucking show was deported by the Iraqis for NOT STANDING BY MILITARY TARGETS. He and his cohorts wanted to protect civilians, not military logistics. This bitch who’s ‘protesting’ now ensured that at least a few extra gallons of fuel got to the Iraqi troopers. O’Keefe wanted to protect those who needed protecting. O’Keefe hasn’t been fined…
Diogenes, I respect your opinions, but think them through for God’s sake!
I would also agree that the government should ignore silly stupid old people but this was an educated woman who deliberately contributed to the proganda machine of a country we were at war with. She willingly took on the position of Tokyo Rose. As a propoganda weapon, she may have contributed to an idealogy that is shooting US soldiers as we speak.
Ideologies don’t kill people, brainwashed soldiers kill people.
TVAA,
Cite?
Whoops. You left off the winky smiley.
Unless you think that ideologies literally pull triggers and set mines. And if you do, then you better have one heckuva cite. On the plus side, if you have it, you can also win cash from Randi.
robertliguori,
I didn’t forget the winky. Hell, the post was going to read “TVAA, (return, return) STFU.”
But yea, being called a brainwashed soldier for doing my part in war (Kosovo campaign, in '99) because I did have to engage someone who was shooting at me?
Milosovic’s ideologies (and secret police) were doing a good job of killing people, but I was the brainwashed soldier? Bah. Hell,
TVAA,
STFU.
I think she probably just get led to that refinery by the Iraqis. I don’t think there was any hostile intent towards the US. I also don’t remember any massive tank assaults on US troops.
Diogenes,
She most certanly (at least, IMO) was led to that refinery by the Iraqis. Does that make her action any less excusable? Oh hell no. It makes it worse, because she knew that others who wanted to protect innocents had been deported.
As far as having hostile intent toward the US, we can discuss this on two levels. 1: The Soviet Union, (cough, cough) I mean, Russian Federation has strategic nuclear missles pointed at the US and her NATO allies. Just because the Soviet (There I go again!) I mean Russian birds haven’t been launched doesn’t mean that there isn’t hostile intent with them. Its part of their doctrine (read The Third World War by General Sir John Hackett or Inside The Soviet Army by Victor Suvorov). Those birds allowed (and continue to allow) a corrupt and evil regiem to defend itself. Her actions are passive, like nuclear tipped missles waiting in their silos, but allowed the Iraqi’s to do the same.
2: Intent in a criminal sense can be compared to homicide and accompanyment. Her INTENT was to protect innocent civilians (no malace aforethought toward the US.) Her ACTION was to protect a logistical supply center of the Iraqi Army. What she did could be (loosely) compared to aiding and abbetting a murder (seeing as she was aiding in the procurement and protection of supplies indended to fight a war effort) or being an accomplice to said murder (again, she had no malice but was aiding the triggerman) or conspiracy to commit murder (she went where she was told after cavorting with the Iraqis.)
Honestly, IMO, she should get the hangmans noose, because the gas chamber costs too much and a firing squad is too dignified.
She desrves a medal as far as I’m concerned. Bush is the real criminal here. He’s the one who sent Americans to die under false pretenses. I really see no point in hanging humanitarians.
I wonder: why is she being fined for what the US soldiers wound up doing: protecting the refineries?
Oh Ryan, I apologize. But that statement comes from a moderate, NOT a liberal. And no, I am not paranoid, just toally annoyed.
Diogenes,
She indeed does deserve some metal, in the form of 500 grains of it forcebly inserted into her body my means of ten guys with rifles. If Bush had engaged in criminal behavior, then he should be brought up on charges (I think deriliction of duty would do well for impeachment, don’t you?) But the fact of the matter REMAINS that this bitch adhered to the commands of a hostile foreign entity and provided aid to said hostile foreign entity. Her actions meet the legal definition of treason, as set forth by the Constitution. The fact that she is being fined for her actions under a law which would not allow for execution is a helluva gesture. But she still deserves the gallows.
I’m sorry but I just can’t muster up a murderous hatred for a kindly old schoolteacher who tried to help other human beings.
I have nothing but love for kindly old schoolteachers. I have a murderous hatred of trators to the US. Diogenes, I can see you NOT calling for her death, but what part of her actions DO NOT conform to the legal definition of treason as per the Constitution?
I agree, with the first part. Can’t see how you can know she’s kind though – for all the newspaper says she might be an evil old hag (given my memory of school teachers – I think that’s the more likely scenario). And what if it had been a kindly old lady that had purposely helped the Nazis? Wouldn’t that have, if not fired up murderous hatred, then at least sparked some moral indignation?
Anyway calling her “humanitarian” is I would say rather hmmm… bold. Let’s not forget that it was Saddam and his ilk that were the human beings she tried to help – at the cost of regular civilian Iraqis as well as American soldiers (not that I think her actions made any difference).
Rune
It’s a sad day in the United States when a peace-loving American is branded a “traitor” for just sitting somewhere. After all, there was nothing preventing the US military from bombing whatever target was located at her position, was there?