U.S. Fines Woman for Being 'Human Shield'

[GroundZero]

they should have saw how well she worked as a shield.
bet she wouldn't have stopped a 50 cal slug very well.

 

[Winchester]

Treason!

She should be taken out and shot or exiled!

Remember what the English did to those who committed treason!!!!

 

[tk149]

While I have not read the actual text of the law she violated, I would guess that the reasoning behind it is similar to the Cuban embargo laws. She chose to go to a country and spend money (however lot or little) which is hostile to the U.S. By doing so, she directly and indirectly financially supported a hostile regime. This doesn't even begin to consider the harm she may have caused as discussed by SagaLore.

There's nothing "heavy-handed" about her being fined. Either she did not bother to look up the legality of her actions beforehand, or she knowingly violated the law. Either way, I hope she gets the book thrown at her.

 

[GasX]

What happened to TGG?

lol...

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: tk149
There's nothing "heavy-handed" about her being fined. Either she did not bother to look up the legality of her actions beforehand, or she knowingly violated the law. Either way, I hope she gets the book thrown at her.

I respectfully disagree. I think the Department of Justice has probably corporately decided not to prosecute the "human shields" for treason (these prosecutions can be tricky, since the Constitution requires two firsthand witnesses for a conviction in a treason case), and instead has elected to go after them civilly, where they are not required to meet the same burden of proof and hold the upper hand in a way they don't in a criminal proceeding. I regard it as ticky-tacky "prosecution" at best, and so I am not crazy about it as a practice. I imagine if they were looking for it, the Dept of Justice would easily be able to find any number of American companies who profited directly or indirectly from business with Iraq in violation of our sanctions, yet they choose to go after this woman, obviously a softer target, for spending a few hundred dollars there. They are clearly within their rights, but I don't feel this is an optimal use of government resources.

 

[dquan97]

Originally posted by: Don_Vito

Originally posted by: tk149
There's nothing "heavy-handed" about her being fined. Either she did not bother to look up the legality of her actions beforehand, or she knowingly violated the law. Either way, I hope she gets the book thrown at her.

I respectfully disagree. I think the Department of Justice has probably corporately decided not to prosecute the "human shields" for treason (these prosecutions can be tricky, since the Constitution requires two firsthand witnesses for a conviction in a treason case), and instead has elected to go after them civilly, where they are not required to meet the same burden of proof and hold the upper hand in a way they don't in a criminal proceeding. I regard it as ticky-tacky "prosecution" at best, and so I am not crazy about it as a practice. I imagine if they were looking for it, the Dept of Justice would easily be able to find any number of American companies who profited directly or indirectly from business with Iraq in violation of our sanctions, yet they choose to go after this woman, obviously a softer target, for spending a few hundred dollars there. They are clearly within their rights, but I don't feel this is an optimal use of government resources.

If the US Gov't was able to get $10K return on a few hundred $ "investment", that's a great return!

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Don_Vito

Originally posted by: tk149
There's nothing "heavy-handed" about her being fined. Either she did not bother to look up the legality of her actions beforehand, or she knowingly violated the law. Either way, I hope she gets the book thrown at her.

I respectfully disagree. I think the Department of Justice has probably corporately decided not to prosecute the "human shields" for treason (these prosecutions can be tricky, since the Constitution requires two firsthand witnesses for a conviction in a treason case), and instead has elected to go after them civilly, where they are not required to meet the same burden of proof and hold the upper hand in a way they don't in a criminal proceeding. I regard it as ticky-tacky "prosecution" at best, and so I am not crazy about it as a practice. I imagine if they were looking for it, the Dept of Justice would easily be able to find any number of American companies who profited directly or indirectly from business with Iraq in violation of our sanctions, yet they choose to go after this woman, obviously a softer target, for spending a few hundred dollars there. They are clearly within their rights, but I don't feel this is an optimal use of government resources.

Maybe not, but her presence hurt us diplomatically in a process that was an attempt to avoid war. Saddam may have accepted exile had these people not interfered. (of course that is all speculation) International politics is a tricky game and the government deserves wide lattitude to protect American interests, sanctions are placed for a reason and I believe they are trying to make an example of Her in a time when actions like this are becoming VERY common.

Personally I believe she violated the terms of a her passport (printed in the back of every passport) and in doing so revoked her citizenship. She should not have been allowed to return.

 

[elzmaddy]

More people voted Democrat regardless of what colors are on the map. Why does it matter where the votes came from?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: elzmaddy
More people voted Democrat regardless of what colors are on the map. Why does it matter where the votes came from?

Because it's widely thought that more welfare-receiving voters live in the huge urban areas and, thus, would benefit from a Democratic President.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: elzmaddy
More people voted Democrat regardless of what colors are on the map. Why does it matter where the votes came from?

That just proves they are more democratic sheep than there are republican sheep. They gather towards places where they can get welfare easier and rear illegitimate children for money

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: rahvin


Maybe not, but her presence hurt us diplomatically in a process that was an attempt to avoid war. Saddam may have accepted exile had these people not interfered. (of course that is all speculation) International politics is a tricky game and the government deserves wide lattitude to protect American interests, sanctions are placed for a reason and I believe they are trying to make an example of Her in a time when actions like this are becoming VERY common.

Personally I believe she violated the terms of a her passport (printed in the back of every passport) and in doing so revoked her citizenship. She should not have been allowed to return.

With all due respect, that is some wild and frankly silly speculation. I see no evidence that the presence of a bunch of Phish fans laying their THC-addled selves atop power stations and railyards affected our foreign policy complexion in the least, and I sure as hell don't believe that Saddam Hussein would have fled Iraq but for these wayward hippies.

As I said, I would rather the government made examples of the people who were actually profiting in Iraq - I would bet my eyeteeth there are U.S. companies that have made hundreds of millions there since sanctions were imposed.

What terms of her passport did she violate that would allow the U.S. to revoke her citizenship? I am not aware of the law on that. I do not know of any provision that would allow the U.S. to revoke the citizenship of a native-born American under any circumstances, and I have been a lawyer for the federal government for years now. This is not to say one doesn't exist - I am just curious to find out if you know of such a law. I know one can have one's passport revoked, but that has the effect of causing one to be returned to the U.S., not deported, and has no effect on citizenship.

 

[GasX]

If these idiots were dumb enough to let Iraq stamp their passport, they deserve whatever happens to them.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Don_Vito

Originally posted by: rahvin


Maybe not, but her presence hurt us diplomatically in a process that was an attempt to avoid war. Saddam may have accepted exile had these people not interfered. (of course that is all speculation) International politics is a tricky game and the government deserves wide lattitude to protect American interests, sanctions are placed for a reason and I believe they are trying to make an example of Her in a time when actions like this are becoming VERY common.

Personally I believe she violated the terms of a her passport (printed in the back of every passport) and in doing so revoked her citizenship. She should not have been allowed to return.

With all due respect, that is some wild and frankly silly speculation. I see no evidence that the presence of a bunch of Phish fans laying their THC-addled selves atop power stations and railyards affected our foreign policy complexion in the least, and I sure as hell don't believe that Saddam Hussein would have fled Iraq but for these wayward hippies.

As I said, I would rather the government made examples of the people who were actually profiting in Iraq - I would bet my eyeteeth there are U.S. companies that have made hundreds of millions there since sanctions were imposed.

What terms of her passport did she violate that would allow the U.S. to revoke her citizenship? I am not aware of the law on that. I do not know of any provision that would allow the U.S. to revoke the citizenship of a native-born American under any circumstances, and I have been a lawyer for the federal government for years now. This is not to say one doesn't exist - I am just curious to find out if you know of such a law.

Everything affects foreign policy and planning. JMO.

IRAQ - *Passport and visa required. Proof of an AIDS test required. The United States suspended diplomatic and consular operations in Iraq in 1990. Since February 1991, U.S. passports are not valid for travel in, to, or through Iraq without authorization from the Department of State. Application for exemptions to this restriction should be submitted in writing to Passport Services, Attn: CA/PPT/PAS, U.S. Department of State, 1111 19th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20524. Attention: U.S. citizens need a Treasury Dept. license in order to engage in any transactions related to travel to and within Iraq. Before planning any travel to Iraq, U.S. citizens should contact the Licensing Division, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury, 1331 G St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20220 (202/622-2480) or http://www.ustreas.gov/ofac/. For more visa information, contact the Iraqi Interests Section, 1801 P Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 (202-483-7500).

I can't find a copy of the terms in the back of the US passport online. One of the terms basically states that if you provide assitance to an enemy of the US that your citizenship can be revoked and you won't be allowed to return to the US. There is also another one about swearing loyalty to a foriegn power with the same consequence.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

What is "JMO"?

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Don_Vito
What is "JMO"?

Just My Opinion

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: Don_Vito
What is "JMO"?

Just My Opinion

Ah - thanks! I did not mean to be a wiseass - I thought you were quoting some source or author I was supposed to know of (e.g., "Joint Manual for Operations" or something).

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Don_Vito

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: Don_Vito
What is "JMO"?

Just My Opinion

Ah - thanks! I did not mean to be a wiseass - I thought you were quoting some source or author I was supposed to know of (e.g., "Joint Manual for Operations" or something).

No problem, I'll be more carefull when inventing my own acronyms from now on.

 

[tk149]

Originally posted by: Don_Vito

I respectfully disagree. I think the Department of Justice has probably corporately decided not to prosecute the "human shields" for treason (these prosecutions can be tricky, since the Constitution requires two firsthand witnesses for a conviction in a treason case), and instead has elected to go after them civilly, where they are not required to meet the same burden of proof and hold the upper hand in a way they don't in a criminal proceeding. I regard it as ticky-tacky "prosecution" at best, and so I am not crazy about it as a practice. I imagine if they were looking for it, the Dept of Justice would easily be able to find any number of American companies who profited directly or indirectly from business with Iraq in violation of our sanctions, yet they choose to go after this woman, obviously a softer target, for spending a few hundred dollars there. They are clearly within their rights, but I don't feel this is an optimal use of government resources.

While I understand your point, I think that:

1. The government has decided to go after the most high-profile cases, which would be the "human shields." Just because they're "small potatoes" doesn't mean that they shouldn't be punished.

2. As you mentioned, treason would be a hard case - if they couldn't kill John Walker Lindh, then they probably can't get these people on treason either. Also, many people would be against charging these people with treason, but not against a fine. I myself think that charging these people with treason would tend to dilute the seriousness of the charge.

3. The case against these people violating the embargo is pretty clear. They probably are on film, with numerous interviews by the media and many witnesses.

4. The case against American companies profiting in Iraq during the embargo is not as clear cut. While I also believe that it is highly probable that some companies did business in Iraq, I have yet to see any evidence. By necessity, these companies would have had to keep a very low profile, and therefore the DoJ may not have much evidence against them. If they do have enough evidence, then I believe those companies should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Also, I think you're underestimating the effect of the human shield's actions on Saddam's opinion. He saw a bunch of AMERICAN citizens willing to risk their lives to shield himself (whatever the truth may have been). Consequently, I think he overestimated the divisiveness of American popular opinion towards a war on Iraq. I think Saddam may very well have accepted exile if these people had not chosen to support him. Of course, this is all complete speculation.