Woman risks imprisonment because she was human shield

People must not be permitted to expose themselves to the danger encountered by putting themselves between our military and the enemy. They were also putting our troops in jeopardy by their presence in the line of fire. There will be a tendency to avoid carrying out the operation due to the possibility injury of the protestors. This change in plans would give the enemy an advantage. They should protest legally by going through our political system. They can vote and discuss their objections with their representatives. That is the way this country works. The fine and/or jail, are appropriate.

Agree with Olen. When they chose to break the law, they chose those consequences. The thought process weighs your desired action, and what that action may bring. It would be hard for them to convince me they were willing to die, but not willing to face the music in the US courts.

The accused protester, Faith Fippinger, is not being prosecuted by the Dept. of Justice for her actions as a "human shield." Such actions are not illegal. Indeed, it is highly unlikely that such actions could be criminalized, as they are protected under the First Amendment.

Instead, she is being fined by the Dept. of the Treasury for engaging in prohibited financial transactions with Iraq. Now, what were these transactions? Most likely purchases of daily necessities, along with buying medical supplies and children's toys for the Iraqis. Is this kind of "commerce" the sort of thing that the statute was designed to prevent? Well, maybe, but then again maybe not.

It seems clear that Fippinger, and a few other "human shields," are being targeted by the Bush administration not because of their "prohibited financial transactions," but because they continue to speak out against the war. And that's a dangerous precedent.

I'm with Joe. IF they want to punish her with jailtime it would be more sincere than the fine. Everyone and their cousin has violated the sanctions. Reporters who flew on prohibited flights did far more than she did.

She is being targeted for her opposition to war. Those who disagree with that opposition are likely to support her punishment but I think it merits a second look.

I don't believe a patriotic American citizen would try to obstruct any part of the effort to eliminate terrorism. The strategy and the carrying out of it, has been carefully planned by people with hard evidence that it should be exercised. The whole thing is to preserve our country, and the freedoms we enjoy. Human Shields blocking our efforts are unjustified.

Whether or not they are unjustified in your eyes says little about whether or not the charges are. The charges are not for the lack of patriotism that irks you.

The charges are for having financial dealings and that is a charge that might not hold water.

New info from joeofchicago.

I agree with her right to object to the war. I thought our government issued warnings to these human sheilds that their behavior was in violation of the law. Obstructing the US military... Will have to search around for facts before making further arguments.

I will say I don't care either, whether what she did was justified or not. That's a personal call. I DO care if it was illegal, and if the shields were informed. Didn't anyone else hear the newscasts relating the US statement about the sheilds?

US statements do not the law make. She is not being charged with obstruction in any case. I think the admin should ahve the balls to try to jail her rather than frame her under an unrelated charge.

The fact that the Human Shields interfered with our freedom to operate effectively in Iraq, tarnishes their patriotism, and makes their actions unjustified.
Look at the pit of evil they were protecting.

Olen, as distastefull as you may find their 'tarnished' patriotism it does not make any and all charges against them valid.

The Bush administration is going after Fippinger for illegal financial transactions primarily because Fippinger isn't guilty of anything else. For instance, she can't be accused of treason, as that only applies to aiding and abetting a declared enemy. Since the US never declared war on Iraq, there is no treason.



I am quite confident that "tarnishing one's own patriotism" is not illegal. Moreover, I'm not so sure that Fippinger and other human shields were unpatriotic.

Fippinger claims that she was there to protect innocent Iraqis. The Bush administration, for its part, claimed that it was only fighting the Iraqi leadership, not the native populace. Indeed, the administration specifically stated that it was not fighting the Iraqi people. As the president proclaimed: "Our only enemy is Saddam's brutal regime".

Fippinger and the Bush administration, therefore, shared many of the same goals: both sought to protect the Iraqi people while respecting their culture, religion, and traditions. True, they went about it in different ways, but that should be beside the point. After all, it was impossible, prior to the war, to know the best way to proceed toward these goals (e.g. the Bush administration thought that a UN resolution was necessary, then desirable, then simply irrelevant). Certainly, we cannot fault Fippinger when the Bush administration itself was unclear on the best path to follow.

As such, Fippinger, who acted only to assist the Iraqi people, has as much right to call herself a patriot as anyone in the Bush administration. And, consequently, anyone who criticizes Fippinger and the other human shields betrays a shocking distrust of the US government. And such distrust is, by its very nature, un-American (if you don't believe me, watch Bill O'Reilly some time). In fact, anyone who questions Fippinger's patriotism calls into question their own patriotism.

And so, I must ask you, Olen, why do you hate America so much?