Iraqi Shoe-Thrower Defends Himself in Court

By Jeralyn, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 08:53:23 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The reporter who threw his shoes at former President Bush appeared in court this week. He told the judge:

"I am charged now with attacking the Prime Minister's guest," he said stoically, making his first public remarks since the incident. "We Arabs are famous for being generous with guests. But Bush and his soldiers have been here for six years. Guests should knock on the door. Those who come sneaking in are not guests."

After his appearance he was whisked away by Iraqi officials. The judge took the matter under advisement. The issue: Whether's Bush's visit was an official visit:

Zeidi, 30, who is charged with assaulting a foreign head of state, posited that Bush's Dec. 14 trip to Baghdad was not an official visit by a foreign dignitary because he arrived to the country without prior notice and didn't leave the Green Zone, which at the time was still under American control.

< Hillary in Indonesia Explains Why She Took SOS Job | Missouri's Josh Kezer Released After 17 Years >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Iraqi Shoe-Thrower Defends Himself in Court | 38 comments (38 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I think his defense strategy holds water... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by kdog on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 09:06:44 AM EST

Bush was a guest like rats are a guest...more like an infestation.

You'd throw a shoe at a rat infesting your house, wouldn't ya?

Hope he wins his freedom.

He should get... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 09:18:21 AM EST

...a Medal of Freedom. I think he qualifies...

It is designed to recognize individuals who have made "an especially meritorious contribution to the security or national interests of the United States, world peace, cultural or other significant public or private endeavors."

Definitely qualifies... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by kdog on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 09:32:11 AM EST

leave it to some random Iraqi journalist to do more for our national interests than the commander-in-chief...former and current.


The ODS (none / 0) (#23)
by Socraticsilence on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:42:52 PM EST

is strong at the moment.


Actually I've been diagnosed... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by kdog on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:45:57 PM EST

with USDS...Uncle Sam Derangement Syndrome.


Well (none / 0) (#32)
by Socraticsilence on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:57:44 PM EST

we haven't been all that great to Iraq- but Obama really hasn't been in office long enough to rack up the body count that Bush II (Iraq War), Clinton (sanctions- see Albright on starving Children- though i'd argue sanctions were defendable), Bush I (calling for the Shiites and the Kurds to rise up, Desert Storm is highly defendable) and Reagan (sale of WMD precursors later used to massacre civilans) had so I think its a bit much to hold them equivalent- especially when any action that got us out of Iraq entirely in the last month is likely to have excacerbated the situation (pull out has to be gradual to avoid leaving a vacuum).


: We shall see... (none / 0) (#36)
by kdog on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 01:14:50 PM EST

lets just say I'm not confident our troops will head west...they're heading east right now.

The defense makes sense to me (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by scribe on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 09:15:09 AM EST

If the government hasn't or cannot prove the essential elements of the offense alleged: case over.

Assuming they have something resembling double jeopardy and ex post facto prohibitions that will preclude revising the charge, or the statute under which the charge is brought, now that the defect has been pointed out.

Big assumption, I know.

Hey (none / 0) (#8)
by squeaky on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 09:49:51 AM EST

Saddam got a fair trial.. lol....


Outstide of the Hague (none / 0) (#27)
by Socraticsilence on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:49:16 PM EST

Saddam was a dead man under any plausible Iragi tribunal (unless the nation was still under Sunni control) when you oppress and routinely murder the groups that make up 2/3rds or more of your countries total population its not going to go well for you when you fall- heck I'm still a bit shocked at Truth and Reconciliation in S. Africa and that was a peaceful handover with orders of magnitude less death (though not necessarily less oppression).


: Iraqi (none / 0) (#28)
by Socraticsilence on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:49:44 PM EST

argh.

No (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by jbindc on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 09:36:00 AM EST

As much as I agree with the sentiment, you don't get to throw a shoe (commit an assault) on the President of the United States. I wonder how many here will be outraged if Obama goes to the Green Zone (not pre-announced for security reasons) and someone throws a shoe at him.

Yes Bush=Obama (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by squeaky on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 09:48:43 AM EST

And give Obama enough time and the Iraqis will either be throwing shoes at him or flowers. Either gesture will speak of the progress we make in winning hearts and minds now that the evil empire is out of office.

We'll see.

In any case Iraqis have every right to throw a shoe at Bush et al. at the very least, imo. I would go further to say that defending Bush and condemning the Iraqi journalist in this case, makes you a certified bushlicker.


You say assault... (5.00 / 3) (#9)
by kdog on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 09:53:14 AM EST

I say political theater...I say legitimate protest.

I encourage all Iraqis and Afghanis to throw relatively harmless shoes at all visiting occupiers...Obama too. Sends a strong message out that we're not welcome, without bloodshed.


Well (5.00 / 3) (#10)
by Steve M on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 09:54:54 AM EST

I mean, you also don't get to invade people's countries, you don't get to bomb their houses, yadda yadda. I'm not one to lionize the shoe-thrower, but the context here is a little different than if, say, some protester threw a shoe at Bush while he was giving the commencement address at Dartmouth.


Good Point (none / 0) (#24)
by Socraticsilence on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:45:36 PM EST

I mean I've been near hate on Bush for years, but if someone chucked something at him on US soil, I'd support charges against them- not only because Bush is a person and all are equal under the law. but also because not doing so would legitmize violence as a tool of political protest- and that's a scary idea.


I don't see it as a violent act... (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by kdog on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:49:03 PM EST

it is the Iraqi cultural equivalent to a pie to the face in the US is how I see it...technically I guess you could call a pie throwing a violent act, but I don't consider it to be. It is a form of protest, just a little more aggressive and theatrical than other forms.


: The thing is (5.00 / 0) (#30)
by Socraticsilence on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:52:46 PM EST

as much as I laugh when people like Bill Kristol and Coulter get pied (or near miss due to 2-D presence in a 3-D plane) its not a legitimate form of protest, additionally shoe-throwing culurally is far more serious than pieing- it'd be more equivalent to chucking feces at a target than pie.

When it first happened, I shared your (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by Inspector Gadget on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 10:16:18 AM EST

thoughts. But, I've lived in the Middle East and understand through experience how very different their culture is from ours, and that from their point of view, the act was an insult, not an attack. I'm surprised the man is being tried for it. With no pun intended, this is one of those things that truly does require having walked in their shoes before passing judgment.

You don't know how many innocent family members he has lost to Bush's war. They know it was Bush's war, so you can probably also imagine the frustration they suffer in how helpless they are to stop the military invasion.

Remember, too, the woman in WA state who was fired from her job as a school bus driver for flipping the bird at the president's motorcade when Bush's limo crossed in front of her bus. I really, really thought that was far too great a punishment for insulting that president.


I totally agree with you on the disrepsect part (none / 0) (#6)
by vicndabx on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 09:47:30 AM EST

but that footage of him chucking his shoes is hilarious.


Hey - I laughed at it too (none / 0) (#12)
by jbindc on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 10:14:44 AM EST

But you still don't get to do that to POTUS. If you don't like him or his policies, then protest.

I guess the people here who think this is acceptable would be ok if someone they wronged came and threw things at them. Might not be the same level of destruction but if you hurt even one person so much that it changed their lives, then you deserve to have that person come throw bricks at your window while you sit near it.

Just make sure you duck.


Yes, there should be some standards (5.00 / 0) (#20)
by vicndabx on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:37:22 PM EST

around acceptable political discourse.


Acceptable Shoe Sizes And Styles? (none / 0) (#21)
by squeaky on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:38:46 PM EST

: Heh (none / 0) (#22)
by vicndabx on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:40:04 PM EST

Americans are under that rule, but (none / 0) (#14)
by Inspector Gadget on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 10:22:17 AM EST

people of other countries are not. Bush got to pre-emptively invade Iraq (the shoe-throwers country), drive their leader out of power, eventually to cheer his execution, and then try to claim our pre-emptive strike was all about giving the Iraqi's their freedom and nothing to do about WMDs, or oil. The Iraqi people didn't ask Bush to do this for them, so hold us to the same standard. Who really belongs on trial?

The Iraqi's wouldn't get too far simply protesting Bush's policies, would they?


If I wronged like Bush has wronged... (none / 0) (#15)
by kdog on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 10:22:17 AM EST

I'd thank my lucky stars I only got a shoe thrown at me.


: He's not that bright (none / 0) (#16)
by Inspector Gadget on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 10:27:47 AM EST

the mere fact he felt entitled to step foot on their soil and consider himself a visiting dignitary is pathetic on a level very few sane people have ever reached.

if this is the best this guy has, (5.00 / 0) (#37)
by cpinva on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 03:07:09 PM EST

Those who come sneaking in are not guests."

i strongly urge him to find another line of work, more suited to his intellectual prowess; i'd hardly call the invasion of a country, announced loudly in advance, "sneaking in".

he might want to rethink this whole "i'll defend myself, i don't need a lawyer" position. people who do that are generally known as "convicts".

obviously he's guilty of simple assault. that is was political protest doesn't make it any less assault.

that, and he has bad aim.

I'm thinking the shoe-thrower (none / 0) (#11)
by oculus on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 10:11:15 AM EST

has read the First Circuit Court of Appeals opinion from yesterday. Especially the part about Guantanamo not being part of sovereign U.S.

Dude was originally facing 15 years (none / 0) (#17)
by KoolJeffrey on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 11:37:58 AM EST

15 years seems a little harsh, but that seems pretty tame compared to a lot of sentences doled out in the middle east. they don't mess around with criminals over there, unless you are a man perpetrating an "honor" killing against a woman.

I think the sentence is excessive (none / 0) (#31)
by MrConservative on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:54:17 PM EST

I think the mandatory minimum here is like seven freaking years. Maybe he shouldn't get completely off, but I think a much more lenient sentence would be more appropriate.


30 days (none / 0) (#33)
by Socraticsilence on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 01:02:24 PM EST

and a fine seems reasonable to me- I mean that's about what he'd get in the US (I'd hope, though admittedly its possible I'm being too lenient), the sad thing is that Bush called for the guy to be let go and while I agree with his sentiment, actually following through would basically prove the "puppet" argument: "Iraq ignores written laws to grant request of US."


: Trust me, 30 days in a Middle Eastern (none / 0) (#38)
by Inspector Gadget on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 04:51:10 PM EST

prison is excessive. They do not feed or provide anything to the prisoners other than the cell. It's up to family, friends and employers to provide the necessities to the prisoners. No air conditioning or heating...think of how it must be on those 125 degree days.

30 days (none / 0) (#34)
by Socraticsilence on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 01:02:33 PM EST

That vid ranks right up there with (none / 0) (#18)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 11:51:40 AM EST

the vid of the guy in Tiananmen Square armed only with his dinner noodles and a loaf of bread facing down the tank.

That said, Zeidi made the choice to assault a head of state. He knew what he was getting himself into.

Not that I think W should meddle in anything Iraq's doing these days, but I think it would be a nice gesture for W to call a presser, made some jokes about the guy's size 10's, and say something like he thinks the guy should be freed or something.

But, then again, W never has been very good at PR...

I always thought (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by Steve M on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:36:17 PM EST

that Bush would score a lot of brownie points if he came out in support of a pardon for the shoe-thrower. I mean, he's out of office, he's not going to be making a lot more overseas trips where the shoe-throwers of the world might be emboldened. What does he care?

But then again, Bush - unlike Bill Clinton, among others - never really seemed to "get" the fact that he had an opposition. I mean, he realized there were people out there who disagreed with him, who had strong feelings, but he always seemed to be a little perplexed by it.


: Yep. He just didn't get it. (none / 0) (#29)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:52:10 PM EST

: I think (none / 0) (#35)
by Socraticsilence on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 01:03:54 PM EST

he did call for letting the guy off- ironically Iraq actually doing so in lieu of following their written law would give even more credence to the argument that they're just a puppet state.