Democracy by comparison
Iraqi ambassador to the US Samir Sumaida’ie tried to reassure the audience at a press conference on Tuesday that Muntather Al Zaidi had been treated fairly because he would have been drawn and quartered had he thrown a shoe at Saddam Hussein. Anything less severe than a horrible painful death, therefore, is fair in this circumstance. A position also taken by Fox News and many others: if it’s democratic compared to a brutal totalitarian autocracy, it’s democratic.
Al Zaidi’s family have not been able to see him and believe this is partly due to the badly beaten state he was in when they tried to visit him. Al Zaidi definitely received at least one beating, immediately after the incident, caught on camera for all to see. Everything else about the handling of the case, from his arrest to his detention, reveals a shambolic judiciary that is not yet fit to be called democratic.
It seems the journalist could be charged with “aggression against a president”, for which conviction would result in imprisonment for 7 to 15 years. If you thought it was an exaggeration to call the flinging of a shoe an act of aggression, at least Nuri al-Maliki and the Iraqi ambassador to the US don’t mince their opinion regarding the real crime committed: insulting a guest. Someone should have told them that there is no reference to old tribal customs in the Iraqi Constitution and referred them to articles 20, 22 and 26 of said constitution.
| Post to del.icio.us |
Filed in: Middle East
Not insulting a guest is an old tribal custom? Really? Here throwing a shoe at someone could get you up to 6 months’ imprisonment. It’s called assault.
I found the whole thing funny too, but you can’t seriously expect to do something like that and not get arrested for it. I’m not condoning the beatings that he undoubtedly received – that’s disgusting just as it would be here – but it sort of sounds as if you don’t think there should be any sort of comeback at all, and I don’t agree with that.
Heh yep.
On a related note I found it very amusing the Western media with their “Throwing a shoe is a big sign of disrepect in Arab culture dontcha know?”!
Seriously, what culture is chucking a shoe at someone seen as respectful!?
al Zaidi has a very good defence – grave and lethal provocation.
@ 3 but equally, in a democracy, Bush would need to be on trial to be proven guilty (even the Nazis got that)
I am no fan of Bush but democracy applies to all.
Persephone, I would like to see that too. More than anything.
I suspect al Zaidi’s trial would precede anything we can expect for Bush. That said there is every liklihood that should we get to an al Zaidi trial, the defence would subpoena Mr Bush.
Unfortunately, that is a good enough reason for there to be no trial. al Zaidi will walk into the arms of a grateful Iraq.
Have you all seen this http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/12/18/the-fruits-of-freedom/ ?
Amusing for me to see the clearly Western white women protesting telling the Iraqi authorities what to do – i.e. free him. Presumably they are staunchly ‘anti-imperialist’. Heh…
He needs to be treated in accordance with Iraqi law, and hopefully it will not be too strict. The alleged beatings are of course totally unacceptable. But then this is Iraq. Police have beaten thousands of suspects in this country over the recent dew decades, and occasionally still do of course. People have had their arms broken it seems due to the actions of police at Climate Camp in the UK in 2008…
‘A position also taken by Fox News and many others: if it’s democratic compared to a brutal totalitarian autocracy, it’s democratic.’
That’s rather putting words into people’s mouths isn’t it?
I don’t think that anyone seriously is saying that Iraq is a democracy in any substantive sense of the word. I think that in context, ‘democratic,’ may be code for, ‘an improvement.’
Leon–
“On a related note I found it very amusing the Western media with their “Throwing a shoe is a big sign of disrepect in Arab culture dontcha know?â€!
Seriously, what culture is chucking a shoe at someone seen as respectful!?”
Well, I don’t know about the Arab world, but in India, people will put a garland of shoes on statues to signify insult. I don’t think I’ve seen shoe necklaces all that much in the US or Italy.
Bush got a trial of sorts in November. But, I also think it is in poor taste to throw shoes, spit etc at an invited guest in your country.
********
Bush would need to be on trial to be proven guilty
Seriously, what culture is chucking a shoe at someone seen as respectful!?
The alleged beatings are of course totally unacceptable. But then this is Iraq.
But… but… I thought it was “liberated”??!
At a cost of tens of thousands of lives and billions of dollars Iraq has merely changed from a secular dictatorship to a ramshackle Third World state where the police behave as badly as they routinely do everywhere else in the Third World.
For the umpteenth time I give sincere thanks that my parents chose to bring me up somewhere so much better than that.
I know that some people will disagree with me here, but I think that the Iraqi journalist had all the right in the world to hurl his shoes at Bush. I mean, I try to put myself into the shoes of an Iraqi who may have lost family, seen their lives uprooted, maybe homeless, or have loved ones who fled across the border as refugees or are internally displaced, and I can see how difficult it could be to put a lid on such brimming anger. And to think that Bush could just waltz into Iraq now anytime he pleases under full protection when he has been the commander-in-chief of an awful, illegal campaign of “shock and awe,” and has been unaccountable for what his administration has done– I can imagine the anger.
And I could also see how the Iraqi reporter may have taken advantage of his position (pre-vetted journalist at a press conference) to make a statement that could be circulated globally through the medium of television. As far as I know, no one has been able to get in Bush’s face and express their anger at what he has done, and if not during a press conference, there’s very little possibility that that may happen.
And for christ’s sake, it’s a shoe. A SHOE. Not a hand grenade, not a knife, not a bullet from an AK-47. A SHOE. I know Katy says it’s an “assault” that gives you at least 6 months in the slammer, but I think that for some people who cheered this journalist, waging an illegal war and disrupting so many lives vs. launching your fucking shoe, the former outweighs the latter.
Katy:
“but it sort of sounds as if you don’t think there should be any sort of comeback at all, and I don’t agree with that.”
What would have been the appropriate comeback for someone who wants to express his anger at the person who he feels is responsible for the current misery that has visited his country, and that due to press officers, spokespeople, has almost no access to be able to personally let the object of his anger know how he feels, and let the rest of the world see it too?
I’m just saying. I think this was probably the only possible comeback given the circumstances. Sure, he could have written an article–but very few people would have read that. Or, he could have sent Bush a venting e-mail, which Bush most lively would have not read.
I would agree with your sentiments if the journalist had launched a very sharp letter opener with the strong or obvious intent to take Bush’s eye out.
I think I may have thoroughly discredited myself for siding with the Iraqi journalist based on circumstantial, visceral empathy. But hey, at least I recognize it.
“Here throwing a shoe at someone could get you up to 6 months’ imprisonment. It’s called assault.”
Iraqi journalist aside, getting 6 months in the john for throwing a shoe is a very long time, I think.
I think I will go press charges against the little red-headed bully bastardress who threw her sandal at me in elementary school. I hope she knows how much she scarred me with that aggravated assault, and I think she should be taught a lesson that all actions come with a price to pay.
so let’s put things in perspective her…Bush goes in under false pretences…(where are those weapons of mass destruction?) thousands of civilians are killed…(collatoral damage), yes Saddam is deposed but then an assassination would’ve worked as well if that was supposed to be the outcome..compared to some journo chucking his shoes…hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm….
“but I think that the Iraqi journalist had all the right in the world to hurl his shoes at Bush.”
But I have to clarify that as someone who has worked in the media, had I been given the chance to attend this press conference, I probably would have not thrown my flat sole, size 5 1/2 shoes at Bush, but I would have been seething inside. I’m just saying that I can see where this dude is coming from.
Anyway, speaking of Iraqi democracy, I wonder if the Iraqi parliament will ever contemplate taking the Bush administration to the International Criminal Court. But as with the enforcement of all international law, this one’s pretty hard to impose, and the US can refuse to comply. And anyway, American administrations have been reluctant to be fully participatory in the ICC, and Bush erased the US’ signature, so where to go from here.
Interesting Salon piece on not letting this administration off the hook for Iraq debacle: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/12/18/prosecutions/index.html
I hope the upcoming Obama administration pursues this, where our Congress failed miserably to rightfully impeach this little monkey. I feel like saying to my fellow Amreekans, “democracy” must be practiced here at home.
In fairness, you’d be very unlikely to get the full six months for throwing a shoe that didn’t actually hit anyone. And it may be that I’m too much of a stickler for rules, but I don’t really see how any government anywhere could stand by whilst a citizen of its country threw something – anything – at a visiting head of state, and didn’t mark it with some sort of penalty.
I understand that there is a huge amount of resentment and hatred towards Bush generally, and Iraq in particular, and I’m not saying that this journalist isn’t entitled to feel that way. Of course he is. But the fact is that there is no country in the world where you can do that without some sort of action being taken against you. It’s like, you know, if your child is incredibly rude to another adult who you don’t like, you might understand entirely why your child behaved that way, but that doesn’t mean you let it go.
If I were Bush, I’d have asked for him to be cautioned and released.
I find it incredulous that we are discussing this from a nice cosy British perspective without thinking about the context that this event has played out…this is not about any random journalist throwing a shoe in some random press conference…in some random country…
Katy:
“It’s like, you know, if your child is incredibly rude to another adult who you don’t like, you might understand entirely why your child behaved that way, but that doesn’t mean you let it go.”
Uh…no, I don’t know what you mean. I don’t think a child is an apt analogy for a pissed off Iraqi, parent equaling government or authorities.
But… but… I thought it was “liberated�?!
Indeed. What would happen to this man had assaulted a guest of Saddam if the Baathist genocidal terror regime were in place? His family would probably be murdered too.
Marvin your yardstick is great…it’s ok..he only got hit a few times around the head ..he’s still alive isn’t he??? it’s his fault anyway for chucking a couple of shoes…
So Marvin, are you saying that Iraq IS liberated?
LOL of course it has been liberated from Saddam’s regime. In its place is a fragile democracy with much communal and criminal violence which has replaced the power vacuum. I support the elected Iraqi government and hope that it over many years it can come to resemble an established democratic government with checks and controls in place to prevent corruption.
Do we really need to get into the rights and wrongs of the Iraq war again? Actually no we don’t.
Sofia. Not at all. Read #16
I think we all agree on what should happen to the guy. Let me re-iterate
Anyone disagree with that?
Do we really need to get into the rights and wrongs of the Iraq war again? Actually no we don’t.
Not unless you support the need for Bush and Blair to face an International Criminal Courts tribunal and be tried for Crimes against Humanity.
Sid @ 26 Exactly.
Marvin what about #16 ..i don’t get what your point is..maybe cuz it’s Friday and I wish the day were over…maybe you can find out what Iraqi law stipulates for assault? Then i’ll see if i agree with it or not
But marvin probably doesn’t. He’d much rather fork out £50 a ticket to see Blair/Bush wax messianical about their born-again-Christian beliefs and god-given authority on their lecture circuits, absolve them them of any wrongdoing, contribute to their pensions, and jerk off with the fanbase which comprises of Aaronovitch, Harry ‘Harry’s Place’ Hatchet, Michael ‘wanker’ Gove, Norm ‘normblog’ Geras et al. Not to mention the execrable Gerard Baker, Oliver Kamm and all the other wonderful pro-war demagogues.
I’m just a bit bemused by shoegate…i reckon i should try out carpet bombing a country, not finding wmds, brutalising civilians, stealing money, encouraging corruption etc etc…and then when some jumped up journo wants to chuck his shoes at me instead of ebaying them, i’ll smugly duck them having learnt the art of ducking missiles of all sorts in my 8 year tenure as self imposed head of the ‘free’ world.
Sofia, you’re not born-again christian enough to get away with it.
Marvin,
‘Anyone disagree with that?’
I don’t disagree at all. As Bush once said ‘bring it on’.
Now the question is will Bush play coward to the end and make sure no charges are brought?
Provocation is a defence, as Katy I am sure will agree. The trial would hinge on how provoked al Zaidi was.
The only way out for Bush-Maliki would be for al Zaidi to be ‘persuaded’ to plead guilty. Otherwise Bush should expect to be paying another visit to the Green Zone.
i’ll have you know i was a glue sniffing, pill popping, drunk teen till i saw the light on my trip to Vegas..
I don’t think a child is an apt analogy for a pissed off Iraqi, parent equaling government or authorities.
Governments pass laws that citizens have to follow, as parents do to children. I think it’s fair. All I meant was that you might sympathise with how someone feels but nonetheless condemn the way they express it. I hope that’s less offensive to you.
@Refresh: provocation is a partial defence to murder, reducing it to manslaughter, but not to any other crime. At least that’s how it works here. I don’t know about Iraq
Katy Newton @ 35 “All I meant was that you might sympathise with how someone feels but nonetheless condemn the way they express it.”
That sums it up for me. Also, behaving like that feeds into what some think brown people behave like: out of control/reacting emotionally, uncivilised, not knowing how to handle a situation etc
And what must be remembered is that the President of the USA, though as the leader holds ultimate responsibility, did not initiate such a war independently – many others are culpable and not being the top dog means they are not bearing the backlash.
This is almost another blog topic in that under what crimes would/could Bush be tried for & who else should also be tried with him.
LOL Sid #29 . Brilliant.
I still fail to understand your anger at liberal interventionism.
“pro-war demagogues”
would that include the SWP, George Galloway et al? I’m sure it would, you seem principled enough
I can’t help but say you are in agreement with the Daily Mail, the National Front, and the BNP by opposing liberal interventionism. Plus of course large parts of the ‘left’ and “mainstrean” Muslim opinion.
BUt of course, teh real scumbags are those who supported the removal of Baathist regime! Worst of course being Iraqis.
Are they still calling poor military execution, zero political management, the destruction of Iraqi civil society and democractic institutions such as the civil service and the police force “liberal intervention”?
I haven’t heard that term equated to the Iraqi invasion in some time.
Why would anyone give a shit about that? I mean aren’t we just supposed to sit back and let the powerful do as they please, you know the only good terrorist is a dead one etc. Only way to make sure that’s true is to allow powerful country’s to kill and invade [in violation of any law] as they please, right?
Marvin,
Look, I could have walked a degree in Galloway bashing from the University of Humourless Wankerishness. But (enough about me, how about you?) none of that really matters. I mean, looking over the Iraq War and concentrating on unsavoury George is like seeing a drowning man and thinking “Y’know, I would help him, but the fucker trying to fish him out once spilt my mate’s drink.”
Outside of the internal politics of the anti-war movemement, it only really serves as a) a distraction from important stuff that one doesn’t want to talk about, and/or b) cheap kicks (if flame wars are your thing).
It currently imagines that leaders with multifarious corporate interests and chequered pasts in anti-democratic movements are really just sensitive souls that want to give a helping hand to the oppressed.
Well, Iraqis were made free from Saddam but they weren’t made free, so they weren’t actually liberated.
Oooh, the possibility for minorly relevant equations is endless. In pre-2003 Iraq, women didn’t really have to fear murderous hitmen: ergo, why is everybody ragging on Saddam? I think not.
Love to all and sundry (especially sundry),
Ben
It might be an improvement but it’s still not good enough.
I wouldn’t want to completely dismiss the option of military intervention, when it comes to stopping a tyrannical, violent regime. The Tutsi-RPF invasion of Rwanda in 1994 to stop the Hutu government’s genocide, is one example of this kind of solution being justifiable. Of course, the Tutsis weren’t outsiders in Rwanda, in the way the Americans definitely ARE outsiders in Iraq. Probably a key difference!
Or what about Vietnam’s invasion of Cambodia in 1979? That was to kick out the Khmer Rougue. O.K. – the Vietnamese probably didn’t invade out of the goodness of their hearts, but if I was a Cambodian civilian at that time I wouldn’t have complained.
Oh yes, and I wonder how much longer (and bloodier) the Bangladesh independence war might have been if India hadn’t come steaming in?
But maybe I’m digressing too much… If I am, sorry.
Why would anyone give a shit about that? I mean aren’t we just supposed to sit back and let the powerful do as they please, you know the only good terrorist is a dead one etc. Only way to make sure that’s true is to allow powerful country’s to kill and invade [in violation of any law] as they please, right?
huh?
how is calling for Muslims to alter their mindsets so that they no longer allow terrorism a free pass nor the hijacking of terrorists of Muslim causes thus ushering in a sea change in Muslim attitudes towards terrorism (which is now happening at last because of Mumabi) and liberal-guilt-free celebration of the mantra “The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist” the same as not allowing leaders to get away with crimes against humanity?
Golam, I agree. But military intervention must be tied with a political component if its to be called a “liberal intervention”. Something which was lacking in Iraq but hopefully not in Afghanistan and certainly not in East Pakistan in 1971.
Any one for leberal intervention, to librate the palestinian people from the brutal ‘Iraeli’ occupation.
What is liberal intervention anyway,cansome please explain.
Any one for leberal intervention, to librate the palestinian people from the brutal ‘Iraeli’ occupation.
What is liberal intervention anyway,cansome please explain.