President Bush has been widely reported as referring to yesterday's shoe-throwing incident as the kind of thing that happens in a free society. It's not clear whether the President was referring to the act of the shoes being thrown, the thrower being promptly beaten to a pulp by local security, having him held without charges in the Prime Minister's residence, or the potential two-year jail term that goes along with the crime of "insulting a visiting head of state."
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Lots of people complained that throwing shoes at the president was an act of violence, and therefore beyond the pale of what should be allowed. I think they're wrong, that it's a harmless expression of naked contempt, and that there ought to be more contempt expressed towards this president, but…
It's amazing what a difference a few short years can make. Once upon a time, many prominent Republicans believed that perjury was a crime so heinous as to warrant throwing the president out of office. Today, however, we find that many of these same characters believe that any sort of jail sentence…
Nat Hentoff has an interesting column at the Village Voice about the Jose Padilla case and the Supreme Court. A little background on the case: in 2002, Jose Padilla was arrested at O'hare airport. John Ashcroft announced the arrest and said that Padilla was planning to set off a radioactive "dirty…
The Bush administration genuinely appears to think that as long as it claims it needs the authority to do something in order to fight terrorism, there are no limits whatsoever on its power. This has reached the point where even the administration's defenders are having a difficult time finding a…
Of course he's also a national hero who probably has a tremendous future as a media darling/possible politician. I doubt he'll be spending two years in jail.
Insulting visiting dignitaries shouldn't be a crime. Assaulting them (and throwing objects is that) however, needs to be. Not that I'm opposed to the sentiment expressed in this case, but the principle must be upheld (though I hope he gets no more than a slap on the wrist, legally speaking).
Great Shoes of Freedom! Could you imagine if he did that with Sadam? He would have never left the room!
mr.knight,insults are defined in the context of culture. in that culture,throwing shoes is considered an insult. shooting with the one weapon that you're allowed is an assault.if you have read his statement as he threw them, you would see that it was not just a personal statement but one on behalf of the many who couldn't speak.in iraq, the sof was voted on in parliment and is to be put before the people for a vote. here the sof was just okayed by the president. is that an insult or an assault on the people of this country,who are paying for this occupation? cjspencer- the rules were clear with sadam, they haven't been with the occupation. that's why there have been so many deaths at checkpoints.if you don't believe me, ask italy.
mr.spencer, to correct a mistake that we both made,the accepted spelling is saddam.