Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
"we'll get the baddies no matter how long....."
Topic Started: Sep 21 2003, 10:03 PM (717 Views)
nztrekkie
Lieutenant
it takes !!

good on you guys - you'll show granny who is boss !!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3126220.stm
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
benetil
Unregistered

Honest to goodness, nztrekkie, you're hysterical! " . . . show granny who's boss . . . "

It's a little past my bedtime - so maybe I'm a little slap-happy - but the link to that article made me laugh so hard I couldn't breathe.
| Quote | ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
It looks as if your news article has convicted this woman before she has entered the courtroom. Could it be that the Executive branch of the government has no sway over what a jury decides and that if she is found not guilty she will have no worries of being charged with that crime again?

Also, being old does not exempt you from being charged with a crime. The embargo was in place for a reason. If every Tom, Dick, Harry and Granny were able to go to Iraq and spend money it wouldn't be much of an embargo would it? If this woman had gone over there and had been a shield and not spent any money, I could find no case against her. The BBC is using her to take a stab at America.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
nztrekkie
Lieutenant
doctortobe
Sep 21 2003, 10:43 PM
It looks as if your news article has convicted this woman before she has entered the courtroom. Could it be that the Executive branch of the government has no sway over what a jury decides and that if she is found not guilty she will have no worries of being charged with that crime again?

Also, being old does not exempt you from being charged with a crime. The embargo was in place for a reason. If every Tom, Dick, Harry and Granny were able to go to Iraq and spend money it wouldn't be much of an embargo would it? If this woman had gone over there and had been a shield and not spent any money, I could find no case against her. The BBC is using her to take a stab at America.

my point was two fold -

1) it just made me laugh because the AMERICAN GOVT was illegally selling arms to Iran, against its own embargo, in the 80's.

2) is this all the govt has to do with it's time - no wonder Bush wanted another US$89 billion !!!!!!!!!!

is this lady really worth spending time on ? if she went free, would 1000's of Americans flock to Iraq and destroy the economic stratedgy that was in place ?

and is there not ONE American spending one cent over there do you think ????
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
nztrekkie
Lieutenant
benetil
Sep 21 2003, 10:15 PM
Honest to goodness, nztrekkie, you're hysterical! " . . . show granny who's boss . . . "

It's a little past my bedtime - so maybe I'm a little slap-happy - but the link to that article made me laugh so hard I couldn't breathe.

I'm glad someone appreciates my sense of humour !!
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Swidden
Member Avatar
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
Clearly the lady isn't exactly a "granny of the stereotypical image. Still the point of prosecuting her, while it may seem cruel to some, is to say to those with a similar predilection of putting themselves in between an adversary and our own efforts (military or otherwise) is to send a message. The message is that if you are prepared do something like this you had best be prepared to endure the consequences of your choice of action. Yes, she did this as a protest. She has exercised her right to express herself, but just as protesters initiating a sit-in in a university chancellor's can expect to be arrested for trespassing, she can expect to be charged with the crime she is accused of committing. If she is convicted, I suspect that her sentence will be relatively light (I did read the penalties, but those are the upper limit).

She has to face up to her actions and not cry about it. Of course she can tell her tale and do all she can to change the system, but that still means paying the necessary price for what she has done and owning up to it.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
Swidden
Sep 22 2003, 07:55 AM
Clearly the lady isn't exactly a "granny of the stereotypical image. Still the point of prosecuting her, while it may seem cruel to some, is to say to those with a similar predilection of putting themselves in between an adversary and our own efforts (military or otherwise) is to send a message. The message is that if you are prepared do something like this you had best be prepared to endure the consequences of your choice of action. Yes, she did this as a protest. She has exercised her right to express herself, but just as protesters initiating a sit-in in a university chancellor's can expect to be arrested for trespassing, she can expect to be charged with the crime she is accused of committing. If she is convicted, I suspect that her sentence will be relatively light (I did read the penalties, but those are the upper limit).

She has to face up to her actions and not cry about it. Of course she can tell her tale and do all she can to change the system, but that still means paying the necessary price for what she has done and owning up to it.

Exactly. I've seen a number of articles about this woman and several interviews with her. She is hardly the "delicate flower" that this article tries to paint her as. Also the article radically overstated the penalties that are being discussed for her if she is convicted. Actually a deal with a relatively minor fine has already been offered, but she has refused it.

1. She chose to go to Iraq knowing the travel embargo was in place. She wasn't sitting at home at the time. She was already in the region and, based on years of taking similiar political based stands, chose to join the human sheild group traveling by bus to the region.

2. Unlike other human shields, she had no problem being used to shield oil refineries. From her description of the trip, I would question how much time she actually spent being a shield, teaching, and "nursing". (By her own admission, she has no nursing experience.) Her role seemed to be to travel around and apologize for the actions of the American government.

It's her right to say what she wants and to challenge the charges against her. Although the article attempts to paint a different picture,however, she has acknowledged she knew there were possible consequences to her actions before she took them.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Things like this make me embarrassed at times that I live in this country. Yes, she knew of possible consequences before she went and technically can be held accountable.

But...

Why was she not allowed to travel to Iraq or to express her views to begin with? :realmad: (That's more of a statement than a question.) Apparently, we don't have freedom of speech in this country as we are led to believe. It's really sad when the KKK can hold hate demonstrations without consequence, but someone who really wants to make a statement against what they believe is truly morally wrong can get fined and jailed. :realmad:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
ImpulseEngine
Sep 22 2003, 04:47 PM
Things like this make me embarrassed at times that I live in this country. Yes, she knew of possible consequences before she went and technically can be held accountable.

But...

Why was she not allowed to travel to Iraq or to express her view to begin with? :realmad: (That's more of a statement than a question.) Apparently, we don't have freedom of speech in this country as we are led to believe. It's really sad when the KKK can hold hate demonstrations without consequence, but someone who really wants to make a statement against what they believe is truly morally wrong can get fined and jailed. :realmad:

:ermm: :ermm:

Maybe because there was going to be a war there? :rolleyes:

Can we assume that you would not expect American personnel to risk their lives to save her if she had been imprisoned by the Iraq government? Can we also assume that you would oppose any legal action against the US goverment by her family if she had been killed?

The US State Department routinely issue warnings/bans about travel. Should they stop doing that and put all Americans at risk because some don't wish to accept the consequences of their actions?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Quote:
 
Maybe because there was going to be a war there?    :rolleyes:


It should be her choice if she wants to be stupid enough to put herself in the middle of a war. :rolleyes:

Quote:
 
Can we assume that you would not expect American personnel to risk their lives to save her if she had been imprisoned by the Iraq government?  Can we also assume that you would oppose any legal action against the US goverment by her family if she had been killed?


Yes and yes.

Quote:
 
The US State Department routinely issue warnings/bans about travel.  Should they stop doing that and put all Americans at risk because some don't wish to accept the consequences of their actions?


Keep the warnings, but not the bans. If people want to be stupid and travel to countries despite warnings, why should we stop them? If someone feels their reasons make the risks worth it, who are we to tell them no? They put themselves at risk, not all Americans.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Bottom line is she did something that can be seen as braking the law and warrants a trill. Its does not matter if she was 2 or 100. It does not mater is she was a strong woman or a week woman. It doesn’t matter if she was doing the right thing or the wrong thing. It doesn’t matter if you would or would not support her. There are laws and rules and every one has to live by them. If you live in a place you can not pick and chose which laws you follow and which laws you do not follow.

She chose to do something she believed in (and I give her credit for sticking to her convictions and actually doing something maybe you should take a que from this woman NZ) but now she must pay for what she did, if what she did broke the law (wich is why she is going to trill to answer this question). If others believe that the law is wrong then they and she can do something to change it so no one else has to worry about braking it as she did. But the law was the law when she committed the act and she has to pay for it.

Do you think the black individuals who decides to sit at the front of the bus where worried they would go to jail? Did they after the act say they where just small and week and why where people picking on them? NO they did not.

(to through some star trek into it) Did the crew of the late USS Enterprise take their stolen klingon ship (after saving Spock and braking the rules to do it) and high-tail-it out of the federation at warp nine? No they went and stud trill for what they did - even though what they did was right.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
ImpulseEngine
Sep 22 2003, 05:05 PM
Quote:
 
The US State Department routinely issue warnings/bans about travel.  Should they stop doing that and put all Americans at risk because some don't wish to accept the consequences of their actions?


Keep the warnings, but not the bans. If people want to be stupid and travel to countries despite warnings, why should we stop them? If someone feels their reasons make the risks worth it, who are we to tell them no? They put themselves at risk, not all Americans.

Realistically, that wouldn't happen. Look at what IS happening... This is not a retired school teacher on her trip to Europe who got on the wrong bus by mistake. This woman has a long history of activism and travling internationally. She herself said she knew about the ban and chose to ignore it.

When she got home, she was officially notified of the violation and has already been offered a plea bargain ($10-12,000 fine, I believe) which she has refused. Do we hear about an intelligent woman in the prime of her life (unless you think being in your 60's means you are automatically old and senile :P ) who CHOSE her actions? Nope, all we hear about is the "big-bad government is beating up on the poor widdle wady". I am embarrased for my gender to hear this woman claim moral ground but refuse to the consequences of her actions. Don't get me wrong - it's her right to refuse the plea - but then don't bitch because people won't just make it "all go away".

I feel worse for the family of the 12 year old who go caught file swapping. Her family paid a $3000 settelement for what was essentially a youthful mistake. The "grandma" is presumably an adult and should know better.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
ImpulseEngine
Sep 22 2003, 12:47 PM
It's really sad when the KKK can hold hate demonstrations without consequence, but someone who really wants to make a statement against what they believe is truly morally wrong can get fined and jailed.   :realmad:

Explain to me why this is a freedom of speech violation - because I dot see it. The woman could scream till her face turned blue about any subject she wanted, and no one would care.

What she did was go some where that was restricted to her. That is not a freedom of speech violation. We as Americans do not have the right to go anywhere and do anything as we please.



oh just so you know - the KKK are people "who really want to make a statement against what they believe is truly morally wrong" - not that you or I agree with them, but that’s what they are doing. they just know not to do it in a restricted area.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
ImpulseEngine
Sep 22 2003, 12:05 PM

It should be her choice if she wants to be stupid enough to put herself in the middle of a war. :rolleyes:

Quote:
 
Can we assume that you would not expect American personnel to risk their lives to save her if she had been imprisoned by the Iraq government?  Can we also assume that you would oppose any legal action against the US goverment by her family if she had been killed?


Yes and yes.

Quote:
 
The US State Department routinely issue warnings/bans about travel.  Should they stop doing that and put all Americans at risk because some don't wish to accept the consequences of their actions?


Keep the warnings, but not the bans. If people want to be stupid and travel to countries despite warnings, why should we stop them? If someone feels their reasons make the risks worth it, who are we to tell them no? They put themselves at risk, not all Americans.

It should not be someone's choice to travel into a place where bans have been placed. The travel ban is there for one's safety.

As for assuming that American personnel risk their lives to save her, THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE TO. "Granny" was nothing more than an agitator. She broke the law.

Okay, if we lift travel bans, and someone goes there anyway, let them rot? If you can prevent them from putting themselves in the situation, then why not. Here's the problem... you wrote: "if someone feels their reasons..." FEELING, not THINKING! If some of these idiots put some thought into their actions they wouldn't do something so stupid.

With freedom comes responsibility. This moron did not wish to act responsibly.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Admiralbill_gomec
Sep 22 2003, 01:31 PM
It should not be someone's choice to travel into a place where bans have been placed. The travel ban is there for one's safety.

I realize it is there for safety, but sometimes danger is not a deterrent. We travel into space, despite the danger, because we believe the risk is worth the potential benefits. In this case, this woman felt the risk was worth making her statement. It's not what I would do, but who am I to tell her that it's not a good enough reason? :o

Quote:
 
As for assuming that American personnel risk their lives to save her, THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE TO.

I agree which is why I replied "yes" to Wichita's statement. She can choose to risk her life if she wants, but that doesn't entitle her to others risking their lives to save her especially when she was farwarned of the dangers. :no:

Quote:
 
Okay, if we lift travel bans, and someone goes there anyway, let them rot? If you can prevent them from putting themselves in the situation, then why not.

Yes, let them rot for the same reason I just stated in the previous point. And why should we prevent them from putting themselves in the situation if it is their free choice? Should we prevent a trapeze artist, a secret service person, a military officer, police officer, firefigher, etc. from risking their lives for what they believe are worthwhile reasons? I just don't see a valid reason for limiting this woman's freedom just because I personally wouldn't do it. You wouldn't catch me walking a tightrope either, but I'm not going to stop those who do. :rolleyes:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus