Fining "Human Shields".....

don't change the fact that you are a dirty lawyer.

awww..... i'm just kidding rodger...... you ain't a lawyer.

 

Rodger could never be a human shield. The ambulances going the other way would be to much of a distraction.

Just funnin' ya Rodgo.

 

Oh well, sucks to be her.


Hey Gran' Ma, what a nice cart board box you live in!

 

Again, what part of the Constitution gives the Feds the authority to tell you where you can and cannot go? Also, since when is it illegal to take an opinion different from that of the government? Telling the government to fuck off is about as American as you can get. This whole nation was founded on the idea of telling government to fuck off. First the British government, and then with the Second Amendment in case the American one got uppity and needed to be told the same thing.

But getting back to the issue at hand, why is this illegal? Upon what Constitutional authority is this law based? I see none myself. But the Constitution isn't a big document and it's available online all over the place. A simple section will do. It seems to me that the First and Tenth Amendments cover her actions pretty well.

Was it a good idea? Frankly, who cares?

And Brad, I think the forefathers would draw greater offense from your endorsement of a police state. See various posts on "if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about, etc."

 

our forfathers could never have anticipated the abuse that would come from freedom of "interpretation" that people have on their laws back then. a blend of a police state may be just what we need. it's obviousl that john Q public can't be disciplined enough for the current laws. it just proves that no form of government will last forever simply because of man's greed and selfishness.

 

Some of you are missing the mark - she's not being charged with violating travel restrictions, she's being charged with violating US trade sanctions. The Constitution absolutely grants Congress the authority to regulate commerce with other nations. Under that authority, Congress enacted the Iraq Sanctions act of 1990 that may have outlawed her activity, but that will be for a court to decide if it comes down to that.

 

So if you are in England, and you kill somebody, can the US Government prosecute you for that?

 

If you're US Military, the Military gets you first if they want. So to answer your question, Yes.

 

Mr. Angel gets an A+ for reading comphrension... (While I get an F for spelling )

 

I actually did know this.

But I am talking about an average (well below average) citizen like the moron bitch in this post?

 

My opinion is that they should shoot her for being a dumbass hippie!!!!


But thats just my .02

 

You just shouldn't do it in a rabid right-winged BBS forum monitored by Limbaugh parrots

 

So does providing oneself with the basic necessities of life constitute 'trade?'

If this woman actually didn't spend money on anything other than "food and emergency supplies" and if if I'm reading this correctly that travelling to Iraq wasn't in itself illegal, I don't think the government has a case.

You can't say it's ok to visit but not ok to eat.

This woman is a 62 year old retired school teacher. Her actions had absolutely no effect on economic sanctions against Iraq.

If you or the treasury dept disagree with her politics that's fine. Take pride that America is a free country.

 

IANAL, but here's the relevant law. Looks like she's getting off easy with only a $10k fine.


IRAQ SANCTIONS ACT (“ISA”) OF 1990

Executive order 12724 is the kicker.

 

I can see the merits of the arguments presented by both sides. I really don't have anywhere near enough information to make and informed opinion, but my gut reaction goes with Rodger's.

What I'd like to know is how the woman's actions constitute "indirect commercial, financial or trade transactions with Iraq." On what evidence is the Treasury Department basing these fines? If she has broken the law, and fines have been levied, why has she not been arrested and charged with a crime? Is Due Process not applicable here?

While I find her actions to have been foolish and misguided, I think she is on the receiving end of governmental bullying and "example making." Furthermore, her acting as a human shield is not treasonous. As far as I can tell, it did not give the enemy an advantage nor endanger our troops and/or citizens.

 

Thanks. Now that I've read it I agree, looks like a fine or jail.

Nonetheless, what she did, and how they're getting her are two different things. The intent of the sanctions (to economically isolate Iraq) is clearly directed at commercial businesses. That is being perverted for political purposes.

 

Sean, I think the crux can be found in Executive order 12724, which is refereneced by the sanction. Take note of Section 2(d), 2(e), 2(g) and 2(h). She violated (or at least appears to have violated) these regulations.

Section 2. The following are prohibited, except to the extent provided in regulations that may hereafter be issued pursuant to this order:
(a) The importation into the United States of any goods or services of Iraqi origin, or any activity that promotes or is intended to promote such importation;
(b) The exportation to Iraq, or to any entity operated from Iraq, or owned or controlled by the Government of Iraq, directly or indirectly, of any goods, technology (including technical data or other information), or services either (i) from the United States, or (ii) requiring the issuance of a license by a Federal agency, or any activity that promotes or is intended to promote such exportation, except donations of articles intended to relieve human suffering, such as food and supplies intended strictly for medical purposes;
(c) Any dealing by a United States person related to property of Iraqi origin exported from Iraq after August 6, 1990, or property intended for exportation from Iraq to any country, or exportation to Iraq from any country, or any activity of any kind that promotes or is intended to promote such dealing;
(d) Any transaction by a United States person relating to travel by any United States citizen or permanent resident alien to Iraq, or to activities by any such person with Iraq, after the date of this order, other than transactions necessary to effect (i) such person's departure from Iraq, (ii) travel and activities for the conduct of official business of the Federal Government or the United Nations, or (iii) travel for journalistic activity by person regularly employed in such capacity by a news-gathering organization;
(e) Any transaction by a United States person relating to transportation to or from Iraq; the provision of transportation to or from the United States by an Iraqi person or any vessel or aircraft of Iraqi registration; or the sale in the United States by any person holding authority under the General Aviation act of 1958, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1301 et seq.), of any transportation by air that includes any stop in Iraq;
(f) The performance by any United States person of any contract, including a financing contract, in support of an industrial, commercial, public utility, or government project in Iraq;
(g) Except as otherwise authorized herein, any commitment or transfer, direct or indirect, of funds, or other financial or economic resources by any United States person to the Government of Iraq or any other person in Iraq.
(h) Any transaction by any United States person that evades or avoids, or has the purpose of evading or avoiding, any of the prohibitions set forth in this order.

As far as being arrested and charged with a crime, note that the sanction provides for civil penalties of fines up to $250,000, aside from criminal penalties which provide for fines up to $1,000,000 and 12 years in the clinker.

I don't see how one can make an argument that her transgression of the law was harmless - she still broke the law. AFAIAC, if one wants to take issue with this then the only point that can be argued is the severity of the penalty. As I said before, she got off lucky with only a $10,000 fine.

 

No one has explained how this retired 62 year old school teacher's "commerce" with Iraq caused any harm.

Because it didn't.

Her political views and actions certainly did.

I think she was wrong to go to Iraq but there are two separate issues here, a fact that everyone is conveniently ignoring.

This woman is guilty of stupidity, nothing more.