U.S. fines former Iraq ‘human shield’

samcurry

Screwing with the code...
Staff member
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.”

i hope she gets jailtime. would serve her right. there are repercusions to your actions.
 
wow. just because she was over there she is being fined. thats some bullshit. she shouldnt be punished in any way. especially for her beliefs.
 
What a can of worms you opened with that freako.

I believe Lucifer has returned & is disguising himself as Al Gore. Since Lucifer is the source of all that is evil I get to kill Mr Gore?

Get the picture?
 
but freako its not her beliefs they are punishing its her disobeying and breaking the law that she is in trouble for. She left to goto a country that we were planning an attack and sanctions had been placed. its a similar thing to cuba sanctions are in place and rules have to be followed.
 
I'm with Sam but thats a personal view of the IDIOTS that were defending Saddam. They also got it into their heads that we were targeting civvies on purpose. What are we? Al-Qaeda? Al-Aqsa martyrs brigade? *insert other muslim extremist group here*
 
the confused one said:
Since the war was illegal

The house & senate passed a resolution allowing the prez to do what he saw fit.

The Brits, Poles & Aussies joined us.

The UN did not officially oppose our actions.

saddam was a criminal.

Iraqis were oppressed & are now free.

Where's the illegality?
 
freako104 said:
i think it has to do with a just war gonz.
a just war? they exist? freako no war is just. War always has been and always will be self serving. Dont ever think anything different.
 
Don't make me go searching for all the previous UN resolutions, up to & including the last one. If the UN real didn't like what we were doing, they'd have slappped sanctions against us, :rofl3:
 
the issue of legality of the war is one that does appear to be less that clear cut, otherwise the stress and hard work to seek a second resolution would not have been necessary. the uk government took the unprecedented step of publishing the decision of the attorney general to find legal basis for war, most analysts described it as correct by legalese but by no means concrete and relied on delicate interpretation of previous un resolutions for authority.

in addition i must point out that the al aqsa martyr brigade are not a muslim extremist group - they are a palestinian militant [terrorist] organisation who explicitly do not seek an islamic state. they are not extremists of the islamic faith in the manner of al queda or the taleban. bbc - al aqsa martyr's
 
flav, if it were only as easy as you try to make it seem. If you break a law there has to be penalties. Its clear and consise, SHE BROKE THE LAW. same as if you get caught with a nice cuban cigar here in the states. Yea it might be good and something i want. BUT if i get caught i gotta pay the piper.
Thats where i see most of todays problems, everyone wants shit just handed to them. No responsabilities and no consequences.
 
samcurry said:
If you break a law there has to be penalties. Its clear and consise...

....Thats where i see most of todays problems, everyone wants shit just handed to them. No responsabilities and no consequences.

We can only hope that ShrubCo will be held responsible and face the consequences.
 
ris said:
the issue of legality of the war is one that does appear to be less that clear cut, otherwise the stress and hard work to seek a second resolution would not have been necessary. the uk government took the unprecedented step of publishing the decision of the attorney general to find legal basis for war, most analysts described it as correct by legalese but by no means concrete and relied on delicate interpretation of previous un resolutions for authority.

in addition i must point out that the al aqsa martyr brigade are not a muslim extremist group - they are a palestinian militant [terrorist] organisation who explicitly do not seek an islamic state. they are not extremists of the islamic faith in the manner of al queda or the taleban. bbc - al aqsa martyr's
Thanks for clarifying Ris :)
 
Re: U.S. fines former Iraq ‘human shield’

steweygrrrr said:
a just war? they exist? freako no war is just. War always has been and always will be self serving. Dont ever think anything different.



thats why i said i think ;) and stewy there was a saint who wrote a book about a just war. if you read my earlier posts im against war iun general. war to me is just useless death and destruction proving that our technology could have gone a better way. now with that in mind the "just war" has some ideas behind it that are still used today.
 
Back
Top