Free Speech question
 

This woman went to Iraq to be a human shield before the war started. Now she is being fined for violating trade sanctions against Iraq. My opinion is that she is kind of stupid but fining her does raise some freedom of expression concerns. Her intent was clearly political and not commercial.

SARASOTA, Fla. - A retired schoolteacher who went to Iraq (news - web sites) 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 (news - web sites) check or any of her assets, officials said.


"She was (in Iraq) in violation of U.S. sanctions," said Taylor Griffin, a Treasury Department (news - web sites) 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."

Re: Free Speech question
 

They say you can't fight city hall.

You can fight city hall. It's just damned expensive.

This woman took a stand, which in this country is her right. When our government disagrees strongly with a stand taken against it by one of it's own citizens it frequently makes the cost of taking that stand prohibitive. This is a form of deterrence.

If you choose to take a stand despite the obvious deterrent you must face the consequences. Right or wrong (and I'm not taking sides, just looking at how things usually happen) the cost of her taking a stand was an unknown non-zero sum. Now she is finding out the cost.

Rockfish

Re: Free Speech question
 

No free speech violation has occurred. She could have gone anywhere in the world and screamed "The war is unjust" except Iraq. Therefore the punishment seems reasonable to me although the 12 year prison sentence does seem a little light.

Re: Free Speech question
 

"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."

Everytime I read something like this I'm skeptical because I haven't read the letter and IMO a lot of reporting is biased as the reporter has an agenda. Did she have a trial? Not even sure the relevent law is. She may be being persecuted by the government and she may not be. The article doesn't provide enough information IMO.

Re: Free Speech question
 

well i heard one of the reasons the enron crew wasnt criminally prosecuted was because it was too complex and the government just didnt have the resources. (eg, not enough prosecutorial manpower)

Since You Brought Up Enron, I\'ll Throw You One Down the Middle
 

Now that you bring this up about Enron, IMO the reason you heard for not prosecuting is bogus. First of all former CFO Andrew Fastow has been indicted on charges as well as others:

Enron's Fastow, wife charged

although Skilling and Lay have not been indicted yet. Also the role of the banks like J.P. Morgan and Citigroup in facilitating the fraud is a big issue in my mind. The Wall Street Journal had several articles devoted to how the banks "Special Purpose Entities (SPEs)" facilitated the fraud. The overall effect of these SPEs is highlighted here:

Banks' complex trades helped Enron mask debt

Morgan and Citigroup claim that these off-shore SPE's were independent of their banking operations although to me they appear to be expressly set up to facilitate the round trip trading and keep the debt off of Enron's balance sheet. IMO these banks have gotten a slap on the wrist when it appears to me that they are probably as guilty of fraud as the Enron execs are and that Enron can't perputuate the fraud without the help of these banks.

Scope of crackdown questioned

Re: Since You Brought Up Enron, I\'ll Throw You One Down the Middle
 

nice post [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

my point of course was they have plenty of resources to prosecute that deluded lady [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] (of course if she had relatives in iraq then thats different i guess)

as for your post im up on all that a bit.

heres the facts:

a) sure cfo was arrested and charged, even cuffed on tv i think i recall, but lets face it its a token charge and he will beat it.

b) literally hundreds of probably the most important business people in the country should be prosecuted (but they wont be)

c) one of the excuses i heard somewhere (print i think) was that the whole matter is so incredibly complex that the fraud oversight investigators just cant get a handle on it (its too complex for them.). of course this is a scam, but it makes decent PR i guess for little guy who wonders why no one is responsible, or even why no one knows (admits) wehre the money went. obviously this is a political hot potato and its kid glove time any excuse will do to not investigate it.

---

btw, saudis are playing hardball they have stated if US tries to tie saudis to 911, etc, that the saudis will expose corrupt US banking stuff (like u mentioned as well as other stuff i guess) .

basically everything is so corrupt theres really no one safe to scapegoat except small fries or newcomers like martha stewart.

also semi biggies like insurers threaten to 'out' banks like j.p. morgan's dirty laundry if they get screwed.

its a lawyers wet dream i guess [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Free Speech question
 

I guess CNN and CNBC, etc. are going to be fined next - Geraldo better watch his ass!

I am sure all of them bought quite a lot of food and emergency supplies (alcohol) while they were counting down to the war.

Re: Free Speech question
 

If they sued any journalists for that, you can bet they'd limit it to Peter Arnett and the al-Jazeera correspondent. Oh no, wait, they already killed him. Maybe they'll sue his family.

Re: Since You Brought Up Enron, I\'ll Throw You One Down the Middle
 

"a) sure cfo was arrested and charged, even cuffed on tv i think i recall, but lets face it its a token charge and he will beat it."

Don't agree at all. Government will make an example of him and they should.

"b) literally hundreds of probably the most important business people in the country should be prosecuted (but they wont be)"

Don't think I agree with this sentiment. Any facts to back it up?

"c) one of the excuses i heard somewhere (print i think) was that the whole matter is so incredibly complex that the fraud oversight investigators just cant get a handle on it (its too complex for them.). of course this is a scam, but it makes decent PR i guess for little guy who wonders why no one is responsible, or even why no one knows (admits) wehre the money went. obviously this is a political hot potato and its kid glove time any excuse will do to not investigate it."

I don't think it's that complex. I find it interesting that the liberal leaders like the Democratic Presidential candidates aren't screaming for the hides of these folks including the banks. Of course Robert Rubin the Treasury Secretary during most of the Clinton administration is an executive at Citigroup now [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]. To be fair Arthur Levitt, who was the head honcho at the SEC during the Clinton administration, states that he saw the problems and wanted to rectify them but the Republican controlled Congress blocked his efforts. Yeah I agree that Martha Stewart is a scape goat more or less, not saying that she isn't guilty but I don't think her case is representative of what the problem is.