When the Iraqi officials suddenly announced that journalist, Muntader al-Zeidi, would not be allowed to appear in open court and could not see his family for eight days, there was widespread speculation that he had been beaten. Now an investigating judge has found that he has signs of a severe beating with bruises on his face and around his eyes.
Al-Zaidi has asked President al-Maliki for a pardon saying “It is too late to reverse the big and ugly act that I perpetrated.” In the meantime, he has become an international celebrity after his footwear protest.
What is most alarming is that, if Iraqi police beat a person in such a high-profile case, one can imagine the lack of deterrence that they feel in normal cases.
For the most recent story, click here.
36 thoughts on “Judge: Iraqi Shoe Thrower Appears Beaten”
Конкурс для блоггеров от DRUGREVENUE с призовым фондом в 3000 долларов, спешите
Seriously what protections under the constitution do you feel you still have? The Patriot Act along with the “signing statements” made George W Bush “the law”. In which state do the police have to knock before entering? In which state is your constitutional rights to probable cause still in effect? Tell me I’d like to move there.
And as for Jericho’s argument please do not confuse mine with his. I never spoke about a “simple” law so simple people could understand it.
You’ll find us “simple folk” who work and are skilled in other fields are not so dumb dirt stupid as you might think, as many of us are capable of understanding things like 1st year Latin, comprehending precedent and or stare decisis, or even stare decisis et quieta non movere. Many of us are even capable of following the dialogue of a good Perry Mason episode without the assistance of a legal professional. In fact you’ll find us “yokels” will surprise you if you give us a chance.
Course it’s more popular I’m sure simply relegating the masses to the “dumb corner” as it elevates others around us and helps promote a scaled down version of the class system, which can be convenient in certain circles, like when dining in or near Adams-Morgan.
All I’m saying is it doesn’t take a law degree to understand many things of the law, like what a reasonable punishment for a man who tosses a shoe at a public official in an act of political protest, ought to be.
For example, when FFLeo tempers his response that “15 years is very unjust” with a disclaimer stating his opinion is not from a “legal professional”, the rest of us poor dumb folk seem to be quite able to muster a collective “gee ya THINK?” without any help from counsel.
Isn’t that what is already has pretty much boiled down to?
“Justice is “just this” and the law should be as simple and easy so that a 5yr old understands it.”
If people were this unsophisticated you’d be correct but they aren’t. As long as people can develop sophisticated ways to wrongly manipulate their fellows and the system, there will be sophisticated laws. Try simplifying the anti-trust laws, the uniform commercial code, criminal procedure, or the law applicable to immigration and you will soon see the havoc and injustice that will ensue. Simplicity is overrated.
Laws evolve just like societies, and the yearning for simpler days with simple laws is just glorification of a pipe dream that never existed. You may recall from history that nation state’s with the simplest laws are the most totalitarian–usually because the entire system of jurisprudence boils down to one edict, “I am the law.”
FFLEO: “Those among us who are actual ‘attorneys at law’ (please, no imposters need reply) can help us understand the legal intricacies of law so that we can all become better and more informed citizens.”
That’s very sweet but even JT himself hasn’t managed to help me understand the intricacies of why Bush is still unimpeached to this very day.
The people don’t need attorneys at law to tell them what the intricacies of the law mean as to know what is just. Justice is “just this” and the law should be as simple and easy so that a 5yr old understands it. But ofcourse, that’s not what they will learn you in law school, you have to figure that out yourself.
I was speculating that he had been beaten as well. I got a hint when I saw about fifteen bodyguards jump to the occasion to take him out right after he threw the bloody shoes….
What the hell do you expect from a US Iraq.
I’m just trying to figure out why you’d make such a declaration in a comment addressed to me..
Sort of like if I kept referencing people who pretend to be law enforcement officers, former or otherwise, when speaking to you.
Oh well, no biggee. As for the whole legal degree thingy I prefer to focus more on the bearer of the degree and their ability to coherently formulate an argument. Those who constantly refer to their law degrees or status as an attorney I assume are doing that as no one could tell otherwise based on their capability to formulate a coherent argument.
Harriet Myers has a law degree.
Monica Goodling had a law degree.
Heck even Alberto Gonzales had a law degree.
Former Federal LEO
1, December 19, 2008 at 9:35 pm
To be sure, in the hidden Internet world, online attorney-at-law imposters/impersonators are an easy charade that I think is somewhat less likely to occur within the JT Blawg than perhaps within some other blogs.”
Okaayyy….and what exactly are you suggesting that has to do with me?
Well that’s wonderful, but I don’t need an attorney to tell me that locking a man up for 10 or 15 years just for tossing a shoe at someone is wrong.
It doesn’t take a legal degree to know the difference between right and wrong and anyone with half a heart would say this mans suffered enough, let him go.
FFLEO (that is I) wrote:
“Those among us who are actual ‘attorneys at law’ (please, no imposters need reply) can help us understand the legal intricacies of law so that we can all become better and more informed citizens.”
I was specifically asking “real” lawyers to reply, *not* nonprofessionals such as you or others like me, therefore *us*, that is, including you, *waynebro* who are unqualified to posit legal interpretations.
I can always get your opinion and that of others here who often *all* have very good and insightful opinions; however those are not credible legal opinions based on legal experience and legal credentials that I sometimes need to flesh out my ignorance of judicial and constitutional law . If Professor Turley were not an acknowledged constitutional law scholar, I likely would not access this informative blawg as often as I visit. I visit several of the other ABA Journal Blawgs, but I always return here because there are attorneys who will give us their legal opinions that are often garnished with extra witticisms, wisdom, and humor. Such replies say a lot about those attorneys that engender more respect from me towards the legal profession, as a whole. In other words, the legal profession cannot be all-bad with lawyers, active or not, like Jonathan Turley, mespo, rafflaw, Vince Tracey, Buddha, et al. and including those who post with pseudonyms that give no indication of whether or not they have a legal education and/or J.D. degree.
To be sure, in the hidden Internet world, online attorney-at-law imposters/impersonators are an easy charade that I think is somewhat less likely to occur within the JT Blawg than perhaps within some other blogs.
As Gyges stated (thanks), I am simply trying to gain information I can trust. I was exceptionally qualified to *enforce* federal and state law, as required; however, I am not a lawyer and the law is fraught with a confusing legal array of inconsistencies that even a Philadelphia Lawyer has trouble making sense of it all. There are considerable requirement/knowledge/skill differences between primary law enforcement—which was my bailiwick—and the other branches of judicial and constitutional law that I am especially interested in trying to understand. My quest for knowledge is important because any 2 legal scholars can have enormous—sometimes approaching a chasm of—differences in their legal interpretations which then have the potential to affect all of our lives and freedoms.
I welcome all opinions; however, I sometimes seek strictly legal opinions based on legal fact and precedent-setting law; and then, I might ask a step further for a cogent legal theory opinion based on educated thought if a legal expert disagrees with the current legal precedence.
Gyges 1, December 19, 2008 at 7:07 pm
“Of course I don’t particularly think that it’s an insult to assume that a person who’s spent years immersing themselves in a subject is more knowledgeable about it than someone who hasn’t.”
Nor do I which is why I didn’t suggest that. I merely suggested that attempting to dismiss other peoples opinions for merely not being attorney’s was ridiculous. And that’s what he appeared to do in this comment.
Former Federal LEO 1, December 19, 2008 at 3:06 pm
“Only the most petty individuals would consider this a “crime” worth anything more than a “don’t do it again” from the authorities.”
Would someone with a legal background please explain to us *all* why the above excerpted comment should not be a basis for administering criminal law.
“This is a ‘blawg’ that considers legal issues and I am here more to learn about the law than to criticize it, although I have abundant criticisms. Those among us who are actual ‘attorneys at law’ (please, no imposters need reply) can help us understand the legal intricacies of law so that we can all become better and more informed citizens.” –
This comment made in response to me suggests that my comments are irrelevant since this is a legal blog or ‘blawg’ and also hints at my being some sort of “impostor” which is of course also ridiculous since I’ve never even alluded to having a law degree. Any reasonable person would make that deduction were it directed to them in response to their opinion on the board topic.
I second that emotion too.
I’m pretty sure that FFLEO is just seeking to become better informed. As far as I can recollect he’s been fairly humble and respectful in his quest. I can’t recall him being insulting or dismissive of anyone’s opinion. Of course I don’t particularly think that it’s an insult to assume that a person who’s spent years immersing themselves in a subject is more knowledgeable about it than someone who hasn’t.
Sorry Leo but I don’t prescribe to your doctrine that the law is “above” the comprehension of the people.
The law represents the very will of the people, hence your repeated comments indicating that only attorney’s in this blog should have any opinion on matters of the law is ridiculous. The law is what we all live by, and if you’re suggesting that a basic comprehension of legal matters, like what would be a just punishment for a reporter who tosses a shoe at a public official in an act of protest would be, is somehow above the mentality of us poor dumb “regular folk” then include yourself in that statistic only please. Most of us are fully capable of understanding the actus reus in this case and the minimal nature of it.
I come here to listen to the opinions of legal experts too, but I don’t insult people buy implying their opinion doesn’t count simply because they didn’t graduate law school.
Comments are closed.