ForumsHQ

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/11/human.shield.fine.ap/index.html





SARASOTA, Florida (AP) -- A retired schoolteacher who went to Iraq to serve as a "human shield" against the U.S. invasion is facing thousands of dollars in U.S. government fines, which she is refusing to pay.



The U.S. Department of the Treasury said in a March letter to Faith Fippinger that she broke the law by crossing the Iraqi border before the war.



Her travel to Iraq violated U.S. sanctions that prohibited American citizens from engaging in "virtually all direct or indirect commercial, financial or trade transactions with Iraq."



She and others from 30 countries spread out through Iraq to prevent the war. She spent about three months there. Only about 20 of nearly 300 "human shields" were Americans, she said.



Fippinger, who returned home May 4, is being fined at least $10,000, but she has refused to pay. She could face up to 12 years in prison.



In her response to the charges, she wrote the government that "if it comes to fines or imprisonment, "please be aware that I will not contribute money to the United States government to continue the buildup of its arsenal of weapons." Since she won't pay, she said, "perhaps the alternative should be considered."



The government also has asked Fippinger, 62, to detail her travels to Iraq and any financial transactions she made. In her response, Fippinger wrote that the only money she spent was on food and emergency supplies.



If Fippinger does not pay, the fine may increase, and the money will be drawn from her retirement paycheck, her Social Security check or any of her assets, officials said.



"She was (in Iraq) in violation of U.S. sanctions," said Taylor Griffin, a Treasury Department spokesman. "That's what happens."



Shortly before the U.S. invasion in March, Fippinger was one of several dozen human shields scattered around a refinery in Baghdad.



"We are planning to stay here in the refinery if war breaks out," Fippinger said at the time. "We are staying here because we think this war is unjust.

:lol: :cry: :lol: :ehh: :ehh:

If we're not to discuss the validity of such laws, then I'd say to do to her whatever the law states -- garnishing, prison, whatever.



I just don't understand how we, as Americans, can be told by the government what to do or not do while we're not in this country, unless it's treasoness (which this isn't). Seems a bit back-asswards to me.



Oh, and btw, the government can't just revoke her citizenship. It's both illegal and unethical. That option should be removed.

Well I think her or anyone that went over there to be shields are traitors to this country. Not saying I agree with this war. We should have finished it 12 years ago when we were there last time. They can protest the war here easier than over there. Its bad enough our soldiers have to kill other people, but the thought of accidently killing our own people cause they were STUPID enough to go against their own country. If they dont like it they can try to change it the rite way. The wrong way just makes them look bad. AND if all else fails and they dont like they way this country is run they do have the option to go to another country(France). :D Nobody is forcing them to stay.



Just my opinion on this matter.

Originally posted by Pike

Well I think her or anyone that went over there to be shields are traitors to this country. Not saying I agree with this war. We should have finished it 12 years ago when we were there last time. They can protest the war here easier than over there. Its bad enough our soldiers have to kill other people, but the thought of accidently killing our own people cause they were STUPID enough to go against their own country. If they dont like it they can try to change it the rite way. The wrong way just makes them look bad. AND if all else fails and they dont like they way this country is run they do have the option to go to another country(France). :D Nobody is forcing them to stay.



Just my opinion on this matter.



The problem with your logic is that to her, that WAS the right way. And she wasn't being a traitor (in her mind) because she was doing what she thought best suited the world; the US included. And "if all else fails and they dont like they way this country is run they do have the option to" do whatever they want, as long as it's legal, to voice their opinion. Telling someone to go to another country is about as un-American as you can get. She was fighting for what America means to her.



And fyi -- in every conflict since Vietnam we've killed more of our own then the enemy has killed of us. This war included. Her life isn't weighing on any Marine's head.

Fuck that, she wants to go against the war and support Iraq, let her ass stay there.

She wasn't supporting Iraq, she was opposing the war. To place herself between our troops and our supposed enemy, is all she did. Just because she had to go to where the troops are to do it doesn't make her a traitor, it means she was standing up for what she believed. Its basically the same principle as those that tie themselves to trees so that they won't be torn down.

Except that the lumberjacks don't die when the trees shoot them b/c the ppl that chain themselves to the trees are moronic enough to go into the middle of a politically announced war zone.



What the "human shields" did could have caused more casualties for the US side just b/c we couldn't be sloppy and bomb, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that was the best approach either. It however should be considered treasonous in the respect that they could have caused more US casualties b/c of their "rightious act".



And now, when we have an extra 58 casualties AFTER the battlefield fighting is over, it just makes you think what could have been avoided (course what other crap would have been done as well).



It's just the point that as a US citizen she shouldn't have done that in that respect, regardless of whether she protested the war or not. She could have just as easily have been pulled from a civilian zone to a high risk zone to protect it instead of the schools. That's basically what happens when people get self-rightous in their acts and think they know better than everyone else.

if they wanna get in the way they need to pay, execute the fucks

I chose revoke her citizen ship, but

DO NOT SEND THE BITCH TO CANADA.



We dont need anymore fanatics up here!



The fucker that is resposible for the Air India bombing in 1985.



Stated in 2000 he was worth an esimated $11 million now the fucker says he is broke and can't affoard to keep paying his lawyer and wants legal aid. And the sad this is, is that this fucker will probably get legal aid, Cause the fuckers that run my fucking country and all the fucking bleeding hearts believe that he has more rights than the people and the families of the people this fucker murdered. Damn I wish we had capital punishment.



Here is the write up from my local news paper The Province



Accused mass murderer Ripudaman Singh Malik bought luxury cars, made thousands of dollars in charitable donations and received money from family, yet still needs legal aid, B.C. Supreme Court was told yesterday.



Malik, who has already received an undisclosed amount of money from the Attorney-General's Ministry for his defence, is seeking more financial aid before his trial resumes in September.



He and Ajaib Singh Bagri are charged with plotting to bomb two Air India flights on June 23, 1985, killing 331 people.



Malik, who has been in custody since October 2000, retained a lawyer three years earlier when he was a suspect in the bombings.



Ripudaman Malik claims he is broke, despite court papers he filed in December 2000 showing his net worth at $11 million.



Asked by government lawyer John Waddell if he did anything to start protecting his multimillion-dollar assets, Malik said only that he thought he'd have enough money to fund his defence.



"I believed even seven months after my arrest that I had enough funds to defend myself," he said.



B.C. started providing legal aid to Malik in February 2002 on the condition that he liquidate his assets.



Court heard Malik deferred wages to three of five children and that one of his companies was doing so poorly that his children's salaries of more than $350,000 was used to keep it afloat.



But Waddell pointed out that no records were kept -- only estimates -- of how much Malik's children were owed in wages.



Malik's sons' living expenses, including entertainment costs, accommodation and vehicles, were also paid for by the family, Malik said.



Malik also testified his mother gave his children $100,000 US, $50,000 of which was used by Jaspreet Malik in 1997 to buy the lot on which a hotel was built in Harrison Hot Springs.



Malik said he also had to pay legal costs for an unrelated civil case before his arrest three years ago, and that the family's fortunes didn't make his wife and children too happy.



"They didn't say anything. Except [my son] Darshan said, 'Daddy, your ship is sinking.'"



Waddell said Malik is still "a Vancouver millionaire" who is a partner in companies that gross millions of dollars a year and own real estate valued in the millions.



He said Malik didn't mention anything in a Dec. 15, 2000, bail-hearing affidavit about receiving $100,000 from his brother Gurdip Singh Malik in California.



Court also heard Malik borrowed $75,000 from a friend so he could



make charitable donations and that he repaid the money from a joint account with his wife Raminder and from tax refunds.



On Wednesday, Malik's lawyer Kevin Woodall, calling his client "a man much diminished," asked for the charges to be stayed unless legal aid continues.



He said Malik paid his legal team $650,000 before running out of cash and seeking legal aid.



- More than $800,000 was spent to keep Malik and Bagri in the former Vancouver Pre-Trial Centre for the past year, according to freedom of information records provided to CBC News.



As a cost-cutting measure, the prison was closed last year and all the inmates except Malik and Bagri were sent to other jails.



It cost $730,000 to staff the prison, most of which will be reimbursed through a federal cost-sharing agreement, and another $100,000 for the building.



"It's just too darned expensive," said Alliance MP Randy White, the party's solicitor-general critic.



"We just go far too overboard."

Wow, I dont think I've ever seen one thread like this before.. every post has an extremely valid point. 46% vote twards revoking her citizenship if she refuses too, wow. :) As far as a revoke being illegal or unethical.. There's nothing,"illegal" for the government.. Florida has a lottery, yet gambling is illegal. The lotto is of course, govt owned. And unethical.. She went to a foreign country, soley on the information we were going to war with them, and stayed after the declaration of war was in effect.

I have to agree, Charging someone for that is stupid. She was hit with trade sanctions as well, for buying food, and emergency supplies; again, incredibly stupid- coming from,"The land of the free." I say anyone can go over there; but once the war starts, if you're on the battlefield, you're 100% expendable.

Her purpose there, however, was to shield Iraqi soldiers. To my knowledge, not one of the surrendering soldiers, nor civilians needed a shield. The only soldiers who would have made use of them were the ones intent on fighting. What purpose does a human shield serve? 2 things.. 1, Allied troops will be reluctant to fire in the direction of the shield; as they would assume its a civilian hostage.(I would hope they wouldnt think twice before blasting an American there of their own free will.) 2, In the case a shot was fired.. the shield would protect an enemy soldier. Either scenario would give the enemy an extra opportunity to fire at our troops. Since that was only possible thanks to the shield, 1 completely justifiable charge is accessory to murder/attempted murder. But, Not firing the gun yourself means nothing.. reguardless what she thought she was doing, she was directly possible for any deaths that were incured from her presence, and even in the case there were no American casualties, her presence there only served that purpose. Killing an American soldier, while siding with a county with whom America has an active declaration of war with, is treason. So if there were any American casualties at the area she was shielding, she should be hit with treason. If there were none, or there is a lack of evidence, she should at least be hit with conspiracy to commit treason. Also, put that along that charge of accessory to murder/attempted murder.. She's in for life, or death.

So I say,"Yes", The charges she was hit with were trifle, and the law is a stupid one. But What she got was a slap on the wrist compared with what she could have gotten. And I would imagine, in large, its due to her elderly age, and .. Well, You remember the L.A. riots dont you? Bleeding hearts indeed. As far as it being unethical.. Not at all. She made an informed choice of Iraq over America, any country in that situation has the right to do so with a smile, because the other option for treason, is we go hunt her down over there, bring her back, and execute her.



So anyways, my personal belief is that America has the right to charge her any price they believe fitting, and $10,000 is not all that much after what she pulled. If she couldnt pay, I could understand a slow pay-back over time(Because coming up with 10k on the spot is ussually not easy.) But she is flat out refusing to pay it, because she does not want to support America(Because we build weapons). Prision wont make her,"A productive member of society." She's too old, and she feels what she did what right reguardless. Also, it wont,"send a message" to others who would put our troops in danger over their beliefs- It will only show America is cruel. Sending her back to Iraq seems fitting to me. She wanted to help them.. so grab a shovel and start rebuilding.



50% for revoke