Iraqi journalist gets three years for throwing shoe at President Bush

[Don Vito Corleone]

From Yahoo!/AP:

BAGHDAD ? The Iraqi journalist who threw shoes at then-President George W. Bush was convicted Thursday of assaulting a foreign leader and sentenced to three years in prison, lawyers said. He shouted "long live Iraq" when the sentence was read.

The verdict came after a short trial in which Muntadhar al-Zeidi, 30, pleaded not guilty to the charge and said his action was a "natural response to the occupation."

* * *

Al-Zeidi could have received up to 15 years in prison for hurling his shoes at Bush last December during a joint press conference with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

But defense lawyers said the judge showed leniency because of al-Zeidi's age and clean record. Many Iraqis consider al-Zeidi a hero for defiantly expressing his anger at a president who they believe destroyed their country after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion. Thousands across the Muslim world took to the streets to demand his release.

* * *

So what do we think of this sentence? Three years seems like a lot to me - I would have called this attempted gross-misdemeanor level assault - but obviously the target was the President of the United States, and he's being sentenced within a much harsher framework than ours. It certainly wouldn't hurt my feelings if he is paroled much sooner.

 

[alchemize]

Much lighter sentence than he would have received in 1999.

 

[nobodyknows]

On the TV this morning they said an appeal is already in the works claimimg that Bush wasn't there "officially". I don't know if they will get anywhere with it though??

3 years does seem a bit harsh to me also. 6 months would be more like it.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Much lighter sentence than he would have received in 1999.

True, though I'm not sure that we want to be in the business of using Saddam Hussein's administration as our yardstick for human rights (nor, presumably, are we taking the tack of "liberating" every country with a harsher regime then our own).

 

[Aharami]

punishment doesnt fit the crime. he threw a pair of shoes. he didnt try to kill the guy. And if some other country was illegally occupying US, I'd want to throw my shoes at the head of the oppressing country as well.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Aharami
punishment doesnt fit the crime. he threw a pair of shoes. he didnt try to kill the guy. And if some other country was illegally occupying US, I'd want to throw my shoes at the head of the oppressing country as well.

What if the shoe had a explosive in it? He put a head of state at risk. He is lucky he wasn't shot and killed on the spot as what should have and probably would have happened. If someone in the states threw something at Obama and the Secret Service were on top of there game he would be in a bodybag. 3 years is light compared to what potentially could have happened.

 

[LTC8K6]

A guy recently threw a shoe at Ahmadinejad, which the media seemed a bit less interested in, despite the larger implications. Wonder what sentence he got?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: RichardE

What if the shoe had a explosive in it? He put a head of state at risk. He is lucky he wasn't shot and killed on the spot as what should have and probably would have happened. If someone in the states threw something at Obama and the Secret Service were on top of there game he would be in a bodybag. 3 years is light compared to what potentially could have happened.

Obviously your scenario would be entirely different - you can't sentence someone based on what "potentially could have happened," particularly when you know full well what actually did happen. If he had thrown an explosive device at the President, several people would likely have been killed and he would deserve a much more severe sentence - none of those things is true. Obviously his actions might well have motivated Secret Service to shoot him, but that has zero bearing on the way his actions should be handled in a court of law. The reality is that President Bush was never struck by either shoe, and suffered no injury whatsoever.

 

[yllus]

What does North American law generally state about the person being assaulted being factored into sentencing? I assume we prosecute and sentence people who assault children harder than anyone else - do heads of state get the same sort of treatment?

In what I vaguely remember learning about Canadian law, one of the tenets to sentencing is to serve as an example to others what happens if you engage in a particular action. I can see that part coming into play here - Iraq has a lot to lose if vetted reporters can't be trusted in the same room as heads of state. They need to post a clear warning of what the consequences will be.

Edit: RabidMongoose would have a field day with this, but I believe Canadian law actually states that the Queen has specific laws written for her - among them being the fact that if you startle/piss off the Queen, you receive a specific and harsher punishment than if you pissed off someone else.

OFFENCES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER

Acts intended to alarm Her Majesty or break public peace

49. Every one who wilfully, in the presence of Her Majesty,

(a) does an act with intent to alarm Her Majesty or to break the public peace, or

(b) does an act that is intended or is likely to cause bodily harm to Her Majesty,

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

Originally posted by: RichardE

What if the shoe had a explosive in it? He put a head of state at risk. He is lucky he wasn't shot and killed on the spot as what should have and probably would have happened. If someone in the states threw something at Obama and the Secret Service were on top of there game he would be in a bodybag. 3 years is light compared to what potentially could have happened.

Obviously your scenario would be entirely different - you can't sentence someone based on what "potentially could have happened," particularly when you know full well what actually did happen. If he had thrown an explosive device at the President, several people would likely have been killed and he would deserve a much more severe sentence - none of those things is true. Obviously his actions might well have motivated Secret Service to shoot him, but that has zero bearing on the way his actions should be handled in a court of law. The reality is that President Bush was never struck by either shoe, and suffered no injury whatsoever.

Yes you can actually. The reason being is that the idea that the risk would be so great to attack a president would be there. What if this guy had gotten nothing? Now everytime our president goes somewhere people feel free to throw things at the president? To the point it becomes almost standard and eventually something harmful is thrown.

You don't attack a head of state in any way shape or form without taking your life in your hands and for good reason. Punishment is about deterrent as much as punishing an act and rehabilitation. It involves all 3. As I said, he should be thankfull the SS were slow and didn't just blow him away like what should have happened.

 

[rudder]

I think the beat down he got from the security guards was punishment enough. I mean there is now even throw your shoe at the president game. No one other than the shoe thrower got hurt in this incident so let bygones be bygones.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Yes you can actually. The reason being is that the idea that the risk would be so great to attack a president would be there. What if this guy had gotten nothing? Now everytime our president goes somewhere people feel free to throw things at the president? To the point it becomes almost standard and eventually something harmful is thrown.

You don't attack a head of state in any way shape or form without taking your life in your hands and for good reason. Punishment is about deterrent as much as punishing an act and rehabilitation. It involves all 3. As I said, he should be thankfull the SS were slow and didn't just blow him away like what should have happened.

Ridiculous. You're now proposing he should be sentenced more harshly because somebody ELSE might throw an explosive device. Your fantasy of a world in which people are free to throw things at the President is absurd.

I also take exception to the proposition that the Secret Service "should have" killed a man for throwing shoes at, but missing, the President. This was an exceptionally minor assault that injured nobody. I would not fault the agents for shooting him, but I'd rather they showed some trigger discipline and common sense. The collateral consequences of this incident would likely have been far greater if shots were fired in this densely packed room, and it would have done nothing to protect the President.

 

[Genx87]

He did toss a shoe at a head of state. What would the penalty be in this country if somebody did the same?

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

Originally posted by: alchemize
Much lighter sentence than he would have received in 1999.

True, though I'm not sure that we want to be in the business of using Saddam Hussein's administration as our yardstick for human rights (nor, presumably, are we taking the tack of "liberating" every country with a harsher regime then our own).

Why would Iraq use the US as a yardstick for human rights (as it seems you are asking)? Our perceptions of justice and fairness are very different than theirs...

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

Originally posted by: RichardE

What if the shoe had a explosive in it? He put a head of state at risk. He is lucky he wasn't shot and killed on the spot as what should have and probably would have happened. If someone in the states threw something at Obama and the Secret Service were on top of there game he would be in a bodybag. 3 years is light compared to what potentially could have happened.

Obviously your scenario would be entirely different - you can't sentence someone based on what "potentially could have happened," particularly when you know full well what actually did happen. If he had thrown an explosive device at the President, several people would likely have been killed and he would deserve a much more severe sentence - none of those things is true. Obviously his actions might well have motivated Secret Service to shoot him, but that has zero bearing on the way his actions should be handled in a court of law. The reality is that President Bush was never struck by either shoe, and suffered no injury whatsoever.

Suppose the assailant had shot a bullet and missed. The potential was there to do severe damage or death.

 

[Robor]

I don't like GWB but he was the president of a nation for crying out loud. Sure, he wasn't harmed, but IMO you have to set an example so people don't do stupid crap like this again. Shout him down until you're dragged out kicking and screaming. Bring a sign. Burn a flag. Don't throw things at the man.

I gotta say though, the look on W's face was priceless. 'Did that guy just throw a shoe at me?'. Have to give him credit - he dodged them well. :laugh:

 

[fleshconsumed]

He shouldn't serve any time in prison, let alone 3 years. Throwing shoes was an insult, but it posed absolutely no danger whatsoever. The pretzel incident put president's life in more danger than this guy.

It's just ridiculous....

3 years for throwing shoes at someone
3 years for throwing shoes at someone
3 years for throwing shoes at someone

It even sounds ridiculous. Would you be OK if we doled this kind of punishment if it happened between two ordinary people? No.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
He shouldn't serve any time in prison, let alone 3 years. Throwing shoes was an insult, but it posed absolutely no danger whatsoever. The pretzel incident put president's life in more danger than this guy.

It's just ridiculous....

3 years for throwing shoes at someone
3 years for throwing shoes at someone
3 years for throwing shoes at someone

It even sounds ridiculous. Would you be OK if we doled this kind of punishment if it happened between two ordinary people? No.

You have no problem with allowing people to throw items at heads of state than?

How about this.

3 years for throwing a projectile at the President of the United States.


How does that sound?

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Genx87
He did toss a shoe at a head of state. What would the penalty be in this country if somebody did the same?

:thumbsup:

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

Originally posted by: RichardE

Yes you can actually. The reason being is that the idea that the risk would be so great to attack a president would be there. What if this guy had gotten nothing? Now everytime our president goes somewhere people feel free to throw things at the president? To the point it becomes almost standard and eventually something harmful is thrown.

You don't attack a head of state in any way shape or form without taking your life in your hands and for good reason. Punishment is about deterrent as much as punishing an act and rehabilitation. It involves all 3. As I said, he should be thankfull the SS were slow and didn't just blow him away like what should have happened.

Ridiculous. You're now proposing he should be sentenced more harshly because somebody ELSE might throw an explosive device. Your fantasy of a world in which people are free to throw things at the President is absurd.

I also take exception to the proposition that the Secret Service "should have" killed a man for throwing shoes at, but missing, the President. This was an exceptionally minor assault that injured nobody. I would not fault the agents for shooting him, but I'd rather they showed some trigger discipline and common sense. The collateral consequences of this incident would likely have been far greater if shots were fired in this densely packed room, and it would have done nothing to protect the President.

So you would allow individuals to throw projectiles at heads of state without consequence? You are the one who lives in some fantasy world. Go throw something at Obama, see what happens, come post about it later.

 

[whattaguy]

What if Obama had a shoe thrown at him?

 

[fleshconsumed]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
He shouldn't serve any time in prison, let alone 3 years. Throwing shoes was an insult, but it posed absolutely no danger whatsoever. The pretzel incident put president's life in more danger than this guy.

It's just ridiculous....

3 years for throwing shoes at someone
3 years for throwing shoes at someone
3 years for throwing shoes at someone

It even sounds ridiculous. Would you be OK if we doled this kind of punishment if it happened between two ordinary people? No.

You have no problem with allowing people to throw items at heads of state than?

How about this.

3 years for throwing a projectile at the President of the United States.


How does that sound?

Shoe is not the same as projectile. Projectile implies anything including a spear which would be classified as attempted murder. A show is harmless.

No potential harm = no jail time. It's as simple as that.

Would you still be willing to give him 3 years if he threw popcorn at him?

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
He shouldn't serve any time in prison, let alone 3 years. Throwing shoes was an insult, but it posed absolutely no danger whatsoever. The pretzel incident put president's life in more danger than this guy.

It's just ridiculous....

3 years for throwing shoes at someone
3 years for throwing shoes at someone
3 years for throwing shoes at someone

It even sounds ridiculous. Would you be OK if we doled this kind of punishment if it happened between two ordinary people? No.

You have no problem with allowing people to throw items at heads of state than?

How about this.

3 years for throwing a projectile at the President of the United States.


How does that sound?

Shoe is not the same as projectile. Projectile implies anything including a spear which would be classified as attempted murder. A show is harmless.

No potential harm = no jail time. It's as simple as that.

Would you still be willing to give him 3 years if he threw popcorn at him?

Doesn't matter what it turned out to be. It was a projectile, an object thrown at a head of state. Just because it turned out to be a shoe, and not a grenade, and just because it didn't hit him, rather than maybe hit him square in the temple killing him does not change the idea of the potential for harm and the resulting repercussions of attempting to harm the president of the united states.

Anyone who throws anything at the president in a aggressive manner should get way more than 3 years of prison time.

 

[fleshconsumed]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
He shouldn't serve any time in prison, let alone 3 years. Throwing shoes was an insult, but it posed absolutely no danger whatsoever. The pretzel incident put president's life in more danger than this guy.

It's just ridiculous....

3 years for throwing shoes at someone
3 years for throwing shoes at someone
3 years for throwing shoes at someone

It even sounds ridiculous. Would you be OK if we doled this kind of punishment if it happened between two ordinary people? No.

You have no problem with allowing people to throw items at heads of state than?

How about this.

3 years for throwing a projectile at the President of the United States.


How does that sound?

Shoe is not the same as projectile. Projectile implies anything including a spear which would be classified as attempted murder. A show is harmless.

No potential harm = no jail time. It's as simple as that.

Would you still be willing to give him 3 years if he threw popcorn at him?

Doesn't matter what it turned out to be. It was a projectile, an object thrown at a head of state. Just because it turned out to be a shoe, and not a grenade, and just because it didn't hit him, rather than maybe hit him square in the temple killing him does not change the idea of the potential for harm and the resulting repercussions of attempting to harm the president of the united states.

Anyone who throws anything at the president in a aggressive manner should get way more than 3 years of prison time.

Attempting harm by throwing a shoe? Ha-ha... don't make me laugh.

Answer my previous question. Popcorn is a projectile. Would you still sentence the guy to 3 years if he threw popcorn at Bush?

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
He shouldn't serve any time in prison, let alone 3 years. Throwing shoes was an insult, but it posed absolutely no danger whatsoever. The pretzel incident put president's life in more danger than this guy.

It's just ridiculous....

3 years for throwing shoes at someone
3 years for throwing shoes at someone
3 years for throwing shoes at someone

It even sounds ridiculous. Would you be OK if we doled this kind of punishment if it happened between two ordinary people? No.

You have no problem with allowing people to throw items at heads of state than?

How about this.

3 years for throwing a projectile at the President of the United States.


How does that sound?

Shoe is not the same as projectile. Projectile implies anything including a spear which would be classified as attempted murder. A show is harmless.

No potential harm = no jail time. It's as simple as that.

Would you still be willing to give him 3 years if he threw popcorn at him?

Doesn't matter what it turned out to be. It was a projectile, an object thrown at a head of state. Just because it turned out to be a shoe, and not a grenade, and just because it didn't hit him, rather than maybe hit him square in the temple killing him does not change the idea of the potential for harm and the resulting repercussions of attempting to harm the president of the united states.

Anyone who throws anything at the president in a aggressive manner should get way more than 3 years of prison time.

Attempting harm by throwing a shoe? Ha-ha... don't make me laugh.

Answer my previous question. Popcorn is a projectile. Would you still sentence the guy to 3 years if he threw popcorn at Bush?

Remember the shoe bomb guy on the plane? Yeah, real funny.

I answered your question.

Anyone who throws anything at the president in a aggressive manner should get way more than 3 years of prison time.

You should practice reading comprehension.


So should anyone who attempts to harm a president and fails get a free pass?