I’d like to see some evidence that she tried to help “Saddam and his ilk” because all the evidence I have was that she was protesting the harm that would come to civilians from an invasion and she was doing it by putting herself with those civilians which seems like the most she could do to protest her convictions. I cannot see in any way how this is “helping the enemy” except by saying that expressing her ideas contrary to the US government is “helping the enemy”.
The US government are charging her solely because she dared express her contrary ideas. If she had been in Irak doing anything which the US government did not object to she would not have been charged.
I still think laws which forbid people to go where ever they want are an unjustified infringement of liberty. I do not think any other free, democratic, developed country has similar laws.
I think it’s fairly condescending to claim she was “just sitting somewhere”, or just “expressing her ideas”. I think her actions went a great deal beyond that, at least I have respect for the courage that took, and am not trying to belittle her. (Well I don’t know if rjung’s post was meant as irony – if so I’m sorry I took it serious)
Based on my opinion that Saddam and his Baathist regime had the most to loose from an invasion, and the general population the most to gain; I think it’s fair to say she helped Saddam and his ilk. You may have another opinion on the war – but I guess it’s a subject that has already been beaten to death other places.
Her purpose was to interfere with the American conduct of the war; I cannot see how anybody can dispute that. That, in my opinion, is treason (legally so or not) whether war had been declared or not. That she chooses to do so by guarding a refinery (in stead of a hospital or school or whatever) is just all that more damming.
In what way did she materially help “Saddam and his ilk”? I mean differently from Americans on US soil who also protested against the invasion? She did not materially do anyhing which hindered US forces nor did she do anything materially which helped Iraqi forces fight US forces. In effect all she did was say: “I believe Iraqi civilians will be killed by this invasion and I believe many Americans are overlooking this and, to make my point, I will put myself with those Iraqi civilians so that, if and when we are killed, Americans are more likely to hear about it”. I think she did nothing wrong unless expressing an opinion contrary to the government is wrong.
Please explain to me how she could have. She did not take up arms against the USA. She did not help the enemy army. Even the Red cross helps the injured in the army and she could have done that and still not be considered to be aiding the enemy. She in no way aided the enemy. No way.
Well, legally it is obviously not treason. Your opinion is that the law is not strict enough. All I can say is that IMHO it is too strict and that I am very glad people who think like you are a tiny minority.
Well I think what she did was something like: “I will sit here at this refinery, and since I’m a US citizen the US air force will think twice before bombing and possible entirely avoid bombing the refinery, for fear of public backlash, bad press or just to avoid complicating matter.”. Thus she tried to force the air force command to take into account matters that are not of strict military concern, or they would not else have had to deal with, and so complicated and interfered with the US conduct of the war. And I think that she choose (or accepted - makes slight difference) to stand guard at a refinery (probably in an area with few civilians), and not a hospital or a residential area, support my interpretation.
Naa, I was talking logically so, or ethically so – I have no opinion on how you in the US wish to form your laws. “Help the enemy during war” I think, is the working definition of treason in this matter. Obviously it’s down to whether she did help the enemy (or if there even was an enemy). I think she did, you think not. In any case, as I have said already, I think it’s silly and serves no purpose to charge her at this point.
sailor, just because her actions were ineffective does not mean they should be ignored. She did not place herself with civilians, she placed herself at a strategic oil refinery. It turns out that we had no intention to blow up the refinery, so her “shield” act was unnecessary to begin with, what a surprise :rolleyes: Even though it was unnecessary, that doesn’t mean that it was irrelevant.
At some point in the war, soldiers had to secure that refinery. Their tactics would most certainly have been changed due to the presence of human shields on the site. Rather than treating it as just a “secure the refinery” mission, it is now a “remove the shields and secure the refinery” mission. YOU might not think that’s an important distinction, but it will draw resources that would be better used somewhere else, or just make this one mission more difficult to pull off safely.
War is a dirty, ugly business, and making it harder to win just results in more death and destruction. Taking soldiers away from one area to account for these civilians can easily result in people winding up dead. These idiots sticking their noses in just muck up the works and potentially put more people six feet under, on both sides. Once the war starts, get out of the way!
She is being charged with aiding the enemy by spending money there which is plainly ridiculous. Plainly ridiculous. She is not being charged with obstructing military operations.To say what she spent there aided the Iraqi economy enough to help them collect more taxes and therefore buy a bigger army is ludicrous. The whole thing is shameful and she has shown more integrity than the liars in the US government.
If I am in the government and I believe the war is just and inevitable then I’d conduct the war all the same and my people would understand if some civilians (of any nationality) are killed. But saying that actions which tend to make people think about the war are treasonous is not the sign of a free country.
sailor, do you honestly think that if a few of these human shields got killed by US bullets that people would “understand”? Her goal was not just to make people think, it was to change the actions of the military.
Stemba, you will go to the Pit BEFORE you call anyone a “fucktard” or tell them to [shut the fuck up], understood? Violating the rules of Great Debates will get you banned.
So is she not charged with that? Because she has committed no crime that’s why. Her purpose was to chage the actions of the government just like the people who protest in the USA want to change the actions of the government and that is not illegal (yet).
She is being charged with some ridiculous charge which is only tangentially connected to what she did which is just like taking people who disagree with the government and harassing them using other laws. The government is being petty and vindictive. No news there.
Repeat after me: Disagreeing with Bush and his handlers does not automatically qualify you for liberal sainthood.
This woman was a “human shield” for an oil refinery. She was not nobly protecting innocent civilians, she was aiding the Iraqi military. I find her actions completely despicable, and wish the political climate would allow her to be charged for treason, which I believe she’s guilty of by the Constitutional definition (not only in some nebulous moral fashion).
That aside, she’s being charged with breaking the US embargo on Iraq, and I don’t see how anyone can argue against that. We had a law saying that you couldn’t spend money in Iraq. She spent money in Iraq. The law was designed to encourage the Iraqi people to rise up and get rid of Saddam… which, as it turns out, they needed a bit of help to do. The questionable effectiveness of the law does not justify her actions.
No it doesn’t but you are still within your rights to be left in peace.
No she wasn’t. If she was she would be charged with that. The fact that she is not charged with that shows you she was not aiding the enemy
that’s your opinion, but, thank, goodness, it is not the law.
The government is selectively using a law against people who disagree with it. And the government does not seem to care much that the Iraqi people are rising against the US occupation much more forcefully than they did against Saddam.
Because people are getting upset over a fine and jail time. A possible death penalty case would be political suicide.
I’m guessing that they’d also have trouble using her statements to press about where she was stationed and such against her in court, and I doubt they’re going to find Iraqi officials to back it up.
Is it selectively enforced by the government against people who disagree with it, though? Here’s the page listing reports on all impositions of fines for violating the program from 04/04/03 to 08/08/03
Over those 4 months, the Treasury imposed fines on 115 individuals and 101 companies, including such radically liberal and anti-government companies as Exxon-Mobil and Walmart.
You may think these laws are bad ideas, but where’s your evidence that the imposition of fines for violating them is politically motivated?
I agree with jharmon’s take on why she’s not charged with treason (or something similar) As for the quote, if you don’t see a difference between protesting to change gov’t action vs. acting in a way to inhibit said gov’t action, there’s nothing I can say that will make any difference.
This is a joke, right? With folks like Bush and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz at the helm, I have no doubts that they wouldn’t have given a second thought to any “human shields” who may or may not have been at their designated targets. Human shields might like to dream that their presence will stop an attack, but I believe most of them know they risk being a sacrificial lamb to the war machine.
And her positioning at an oil refinery makes no difference to the argument; she could have randomly selected lat/long coordinates and gotten the same effect (and the same charge).
If she was actively doing something to impede the American invasion, like cutting fuel lines in trucks or offering free sex to soldiers who threw down their guns, then the “treason” charges might have some meaning. As it is, this is all just the same “you’re either with us or against us” nonsense that this Administration keeps tossing out.
I really, really want to stay away from this nasty, dispiriting thread, but does anyone have any cites for the believe that the actions of this lady in any way caused material, tactical or any disruption to US forces, or any material or tactical or any aid to Iraqi forces?
You ask why she isn’t being tried for treason…maybe because the only legal recourse for a ‘guilty’ verdict for treason is execution (which, btw, is what SHOULD happen…) and perhaps the US government doesn’t feel she deserves to die? Maybe they’re trying to set an example without killing American citizens?
This actually draws back to the 1960’s and 1970’s, where every draft-dodging sonofabitch could have been tried under the UCMJ for ‘pulsilominious conduct intended to avoid hazardous duty,’ desertion, and (in the case of Ms. Jane Fonda, liberal bitch who, according to POW Col. John Fer, USAF, RET) trator who’s personal actions led to the deaths of six POW’s.
And as far as treason not being treason, read Article III, Section 3 again. Treason consists in waging war against the US (not declairing war, but fighting one) or aiding the enemies of the United States (Rosenbergs, y’all. They got the gas chamber at Sing Sing for passing secrets to our enemy, the Russian Federation…er…Soviet Union.)
What the hell does THAT word mean? I’ve looked in about 6 dictionaries (online) and I haven’t found it yet.
Many people were against the war in Vietnam - and many DIDN’T want to personally fight it. That was one of the main reasons that we have an all-volunteer military today - backlash from the Vietnam war. And if we still had the draft TODAY, and men were being forced to go to Iraq against there will, there probably would be just as big a backlash against this war. No Draft=Apathy.