Iraqi judge says shoe-throwing reporter was beaten

I hear he's made the maker of his shoes rich.

I hear he was beaten to within a half-size of his life.

Hear Say.

HE figured he'd do a little time and come out as a living hero to his people.

A big assumption on your part.

A hero makes self-less acts of courage.

I guess that the instant a hero benefits from his brave act he ceases to be a hero?

Its a wonder the whole freaking world does not rise up and attack unpopular leaders with all those wonderful benefits to doing so.

What he should have done is continue to write the truth about Bush's policies.

That has been going on for 8 years. What changes? Anybody could just sit on their keister and wait for Bush to finish his term. No need to even write.

Not one tenent of the Genva convention was ever followed by those people, so who could anyone apply it to them?

If you on their level then speak for yourself.

no doubt you consider people who hijack commercial planes and crash them into buildings to kill innocent people are brave.

A mix of brave and crazy I would say. And lets not forget misguided. Killing one's self in such a way is not an act of cowardice. Doing it by remote control would be.

And it takes nothing away from the fact that dropping bombs from planes completely unopposed is NOT bravery. Doolittle Raid=extreme bravery Tokyo fireboming=cowardly following orders

or so called freedom fighters who use their own people, women and children, as human shields as brave.

Where do you get this human shield business? Those people are in their own countries, living in their own towns with their own families. So when you bomb them, yeah, their women and children are right there. They fight in the streets, or else they just get slaughtered.

I would bet A LOT OF MONEY that if we chose a piece of ground and it was 100 of our guys vs 100 of theirs, same weapons same everything and their goals could be achieved by winning, they would gladly fight that battle. As it is they are up against predator drones, stealth bombers, thermal imaging, satellite technology, unlimited ammo, tanks, etc. etc. and since ours have those advantages, what do you expect them to do to level the playing field somewhat? They are not running out in the desert drawing lines in the sand, that is for sure.

I don't like the half of what they do either, but if the situation were reversed you would either do similar things or just give up, and the latter would be the least likely to be called brave.

To VoXman, and all posters like him, stay on topic. The point I do agree with is that this shoe-thrower, Muntadhar, has been arrested and is rightfully being kept in a prison. What I don't agree with, is that torture is an acceptable form of treatment. This article clearly states that a confirmed judge has stated that enough evidence shows that an investigation should be done as to why he has sustained multiple bruises and torture. I for one, do not accept such actions, and I would hope that others would not too. Guilty of throwing shoes he is, but he does not deserve to be treated like a dog.

gaijintraveller: a Brave man you say? Please, he knew no matter what he'd be seen as a hero to the Islamic world. HE figured he'd do a little time and come out as a living hero to his people. Please! A hero makes self-less acts of courage. What he should have done is continue to write the truth about Bush's policies.

"No doubt you consider people who drop bombs on civilians from planes or get others to do it for them are brave"

I say: no doubt you consider people who hijack commercial planes and crash them into buildings to kill innocent people are brave. or so called freedom fighters who use their own people, women and children, as human shields as brave.

"Regarding legality, I suppose nothing is illegal to a President who considers himself and his administration above the law and not restricted by international treaties such as the Geneva convention.

I'd say yes, when in fact you can't even apply the geneva convention to anything the Taliban, AL Queda or any insurgnet has ever done. Not one tenent of the Genva convention was ever followed by those people, so who could anyone apply it to them? Are they children? excused for their behavior, not held accountable?

USARonin, the man is not a coward. It takes a brave man to hurl a shoe, which is unlikely to be fatal, at a man surrounded by armed heavies. What was he supposed to do to make his point? Challenge Bush to fisticuffs?

No doubt you consider people who drop bombs on civilians from planes or get others to do it for them are brave.

Regarding legality, I suppose nothing is illegal to a President who considers himself and his administration above the law and not restricted by international treaties such as the Geneva convention.

It's a statement of fact: The war is not "illegal".

Really, where do you get your stuff?

Mr. 187, the war isn't "illegal".

Who fills your head with this stuff?

Are they the same folks from where you get your "millions" statement.

I see.

USARonin, I am referring to why he threw the shoe. Oh and yea if it is in the article it must be "True". Hint "Illegal War".

Mr. 187, what "millions"?

If you read the article you'd see the judge was referrin' to the "scuffle" that followed, and that Mr. Shoeless was "wrestled to the ground".

Ironically, Mr. 187, this coward chose to threw his shoes at the one guy who helped give him the power to do it... and still be in the land of the livin' to talk about it later.

If this coward had thrown his shoes at the head of state for Egypt, Syria, Jordan and da like we'd be talkin' about a wet red spot on the ground rather than someone offering profuse apologies for his cowardly and childish behavior.

I'm not losin' any sleep over how hard this guy was taken down. You?

Iraqi judge says shoe-throwing reporter was beaten: Beaten reporter or almost hit by shoe murderer - which is worse?

Oh Shoe throwers are far worse to a person who causes millions to die. Yes..... All in relation to Iraqi judge says shoe-throwing reporter was beaten.

sailwind: Muntazer's investigating judge Dhiya al-Kenani said on Thursday that the 29-year-old television reporter was in good health and being well treated.

Some might lose the chance to express outrage about the allegations from this point on, but you can't really erase past outrage. In fact, some might even express outrage at unconfirmed reports quickly so they don't miss the opportunity to do so if the allegations are proven to be untrue. By this point in time their outrage will have subsided anyway, so asking if the allegations are true or not becomes irrelevant. The result is the same either way, so why not take the chance to attack the other side while you have it?

He was assaulted. Why the quotation marks?

And not even see a doctor? Gee, I am glad we have had them under control for six years. It really takes time to seal the cracks, eh?

You got proof of this? And don't forget about the medical attention bit.

I guess you can rest easy now, likeitis your hero is in good health and wasn't tortured. I know your dissapointed

Durgham said that the family had been able to talk to Muntazer on the telephone and that he had allayed their previous fears about his treatment.

"He is in good health and does not have a broken arm. He just has some blows to his face," he said.

Durgham had said on Monday that his brother had sustained a broken arm and ribs after being hit by Iraqi security forces.

Muntazer's investigating judge Dhiya al-Kenani said on Thursday that the 29-year-old television reporter was in good health and being well treated.

"He was wounded during his arrest and not afterwards. He has not been beaten during his interrogation," the judge said, adding that, "a doctor is examining him everyday and he has medicine at his disposal."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iDgPVb5zNrzk_oPMMTPeBxzqbLfw

Not serious or clandestine approval.

Releasing him without charge gives the impression it's not serious to shriek and throw objects at a visiting head of state, namely one who has quite a bit of recent history in the country where he was "assaulted"...

All news coming out of Iraq is agenda driven & has little if anything to do with truth so all of the above speculation from so many experts on Iraq living in Japan is quite good fun, to read. Do you (we) know anything? No.

All of this could be defused if that idiot Bush simply went public & said that it wasn’t important to him & the shoe thrower should be released without charge. The incidents power comes from the people that give it power, it is an insult if it is seen as an insult, trivialize it & it becomes trivial.

All news coming out of Iraq is agenda driven & has little if anything to do with truth so all of the above speculation from so many experts on Iraq living in Japan is quite good fun, to read. Do you (we) know anything? No.

All of this could be defused if that idiot Bush simply went public & said that it wasn’t important to him & the shoe thrower should be released without charge. The incidents power comes from the people that give it power, it is an insult if it is seen as an insult, trivialize it & it becomes trivial.

SuperLib: "Ah, smithinjapan...the champion of due process and protecting rights under the law. Except when a person is assaulted that he doesn't like, then the perp is a hero. Sadr is holding some protests. Perhaps you can join him. :)"

Hahaha... I wrote that one personally for you, with the knowledge that I blew you away on it yesterday and in the end you could not come back and answer. I pointed out all the people I didn't like that would equally have deserved a shoe thrown at them and all you could do was ignore it and say, "All I see is people you don't like". When more than a few people pointed out how your hypocrisy meant you were also against the illegal invasion of Iraq? .... no more comments from you.

Always humourous, my friend, and the past week more than ever from you. It's a shame, really... until three or four days ago some of your points were very objective and valid, and even one or two reproaches of yours truly caught me off guard and made me rethink my comments. Not these, though... you really do make your own comments look hilarious. This shoe-tosser really has made you lose it.

But hey, since you I have admitted some bias in the past, why not admit that you don't even in the slightest actually address my points on this thread? Let's look at it again, shall we?

"In other words, treating people as innocent until proven guilty is a noble concept only when it is used for ALL people, and not just used selectively."

You'll notice the person in question has not come back to comment.

Nippon5,

I think if I were an investigating judge, I too would ask al-Zeidi if he wrote the letter. What I am saying is that if I were an Iraqi investigating judge who asked al-Zeidi if he wrote the letter and if al-Zeidi said, "Yes, but under duress", I might just report, "He wrote the letter" if my bread were buttered by those who had an interest in portraying this as a voluntary act. We've certainly seen information held back even by Americans--and not just in the last 8 years.

It's not your assumption that the judge questioned al-Zeidi that bothers me. It's your assumption that the judge is an honest one. At least according to reports here, al-Zeidi's brother seems to feel that the request for a pardon is out of character. Maybe he doesn't know his brother as well as he thinks. But maybe he does. And what causes us to do things that are out of character?

Only the radical head-bangers on the far American right ever bought that one.

Yeah, I know. I just want to see how the "new reason" for invading Iraq stands up since WMD got dropped.

The guy is a danger to himself and others and shouldn't be released. He was given a pencil and paper and told to write a statement and his reaction was to try to stab the guards in the throat. One is in serious condition and recovering in the hospital now.

That may or may bot be true since I just made it up, but healthy skepticism of the official story is something I pride myself on.

smithinjapan: In other words, treating people as innocent until proven guilty is a noble concept only when it is used for ALL people, and not just used selectively.

Ah, smithinjapan...the champion of due process and protecting rights under the law. Except when a person is assaulted that he doesn't like, then the perp is a hero. Sadr is holding some protests. Perhaps you can join him. :)

"Are we bringing these people freedom from oppression or not?"

Only the radical head-bangers on the far American right ever bought that one. The middle east is a nest of abuse of human rights, and this isn't something that will disappear overnight, whatever some deranged people would have us believe.

According to Iraqi law a suspect is not entitled to visition until he is formally charged. It is then he can have visitors see his lawyer in persion and prepare a defense case.

And not even see a doctor? Gee, I am glad we have had them under control for six years. It really takes time to seal the cracks, eh?

You got proof of this? And don't forget about the medical attention bit.

I'd suggest you stop trying to change their legal system because it just doesn't suit your political agenda right now.

I suggest you don't forget your political agenda because its inconvenient right now. Are we bringing these people freedom from oppression or not? That might take some tinkering with Saddam's law rather than just removing Saddam, no?

Stop giving authority a free ride sailwind. And stop forgetting all those times they screwed us even if they did think it was for our own good. Its not like our doubts are going to change anything anyway. So lets just be honest with eachother.

I'd suggest you stop trying to change their legal system because it just doesn't suit your political agenda right now. That is as honest as I can get with you, though I doubt if that will sink in.

s far as getting blood on the ground after a take down. You sure havent been a person taking someone down before. I suggest since I doubt you can get the hands one aspect of a takledown you should watch a show like cops. Blood happens a lot when taken down a perp.

Did you think what you saw on the video bore any resemblence to an episode of "Cops"? I used to wrestle. Rarely, there was some blood, even with no odd objects around. Not a lot, but some. I assisted in taking a guy with a cutter knife down one time. No blood. Thankfully my buddy who led the charge is a better wrestler than me.

I completely realize that even in that confined space with people all around it is possible he jerked his head and smashed his face on something and nose bled all over the carpet. But it does not look like he was struggling much before the camera was cut. Even one guy struggling can make a whole crowd shift. I did not see that. What I saw was al-Zeidi sit his butt right back down after throwing the shoes. I can't see how he got to the floor, but it was not a big move from his seat. Then he is surrounded by guys who appear to be stomping and/or kicking, and I hear him letting what sound like yelps of pain.

I am not saying that I have absolute proof of anything, but given all that, I cannot believe anyone would put any money on the idea that al-Zeidi was made to bleed in the process of a take-down rather than vengeful unnecessary violence. Or are you just enjoying the role of Devil's advocate?

Why is he not allowed to visit him? Aren't you suspicious of that in the least?

Why no visits from the Red Crescent if the judge admits he was beaten? Why no vistits from his brother?

Because his case is still under investigation. That is why we have an investigating judge right now. A THIRD PARTY.

According to Iraqi law a suspect is not entitled to visition until he is formally charged. It is then he can have visitors see his lawyer in persion and prepare a defense case.

Next???

He's not a third party???? What the heck is he then?

He does not quite make it as a third party. He is in position of authority in one of the branches of government.

I know you have a desperate need to have faith in authority sailwind, but its been proven over and over that sometimes they do lie and violate our trust with not only lies but also silence and hiding the truth. (Remember Deep Throat?) I doubt it would be hard to convince a judge of the serious implications this matter could mean for the country and convince him to withhold some information, as if legal authorites are not used to doing that already.

The judge told the press that al-Zeidi was beaten in the news conference. But note that he did not bother to tell us that he was NOT beaten outside of it or in his cell. What the judge did not say is significant.

You can make the argument that we are not getting all the info in the interest of quelling potential unrest. But al-Zeidi should not have been beaten in the first place. And, if he was only beaten in the press room, it could not be THAT bad could it? I mean, crap, it was mostly journalists there right, not holdovers from Saddam's Republican Guard? So why no pictures? Why no visits from the Red Crescent if the judge admits he was beaten? Why no vistits from his brother? Its not like he threw a lethal weapon at the President. Why is he not out on bail? Even if you do make the quell unrest argument, IT STILL looks ugly. It STILL looks like the government is hiding its own dirty business to quell that unrest.

Stop giving authority a free ride sailwind. And stop forgetting all those times they screwed us even if they did think it was for our own good. Its not like our doubts are going to change anything anyway. So lets just be honest with eachother.

Nippon5: "If the brother had visited him and seen him and said he was a mess then I would believe him, but he didnt, hasnt. And with that I cant take his account as neither fact nor truth."

Why is he not allowed to visit him? Aren't you suspicious of that in the least?

I hope his beating gets him off. Or they lock up the cops who beat him after leaving the interview area.

But they won't find out what happened.

Secret Servivce stealing those shoes. < :-)

If the brother had visited him and seen him and said he was a mess then I would believe him, but he didnt, hasnt. And with that I cant take his account as neither fact nor truth.

Nippon5: alright, my last post was a wee bit harsh, but just pointing out the fact that you claim you believe one is innocent until proven guilty only when it suits what you want to believe. I'm sorry if that upsets you, but that's the way it is.

I am not believing much of anything unless it comes DIRECTLY from a third party or is clear in the video. This "he said" crap just isn't cutting the mustard.

I'm confused.

The statement to The Associated Press by Dhia al-Kinani, the judge investigating the incident, was the first official word that Muntadhar al-Zeidi was hurt following his outburst at a news conference by Bush and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. According to the judge, al-Zeidi had a bruised face and eyes.

He's not a third party???? What the heck is he then?

Nippon5: "please look past your tunnel and actually see something other then your doomsday BS all the time"

Well, that's funny, because I'm not the one who made the comment about the blood on the floor, it was likeitis. And yet you address your comment on the subject to me, which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is YOU who needs to 'look at the tunnel', or at least through the beer goggles, at what you are saying.

"If the brother had visited him and seen him and said he was a mess then I would believe him, but he did, hasmt, and with that I cant take his account as fact nor truth."

I'm really really sorry for pointing out the English thing again, but this makes zero sense. You say, "If the brother had visited him... but he did, hasmt, and with that I cant take his account as fact nor truth", and it makes no sense at all. I THINK I understand what you are trying to say, but THAT following, 'take a look at what you are saying' doesn't suit any kind of defense, my friend. Take a breather, relax, and try to understand that, believe it or not, I am trying to talk to you on this, not merely point out all your contradictions.

Please refrain from posting immediately after an enkai.

skipthesong: "But to defend a guy who threw a shoe at a leader of a country is very unbecoming."

Where does it say I'm defending the guy? I'm merely saying there is no reason NOT to be suspicious. But, go ahead and tell mere where it's I who have said ON THIS THREAD I am defending the man, and then proceed to tell me where it is I who am angry and not you who is simply misdirecting something here. Seriously, skip... I have come on here pointing out that all the people yesterday who made snarky remarks about how the man 'recounts his sins' or whatever words they use have reason to be skeptical, and you jump on and assuming I am angry about something. Simply bizarre.

"As for the shoe being this so called "insult", can anyone tell what place on the planet is it NOT an insult? There are more articles today on "throwing a shoe is considered an insult in Arab culture" duh!"

I'm not a hundred percent sure what you are getting at.

smitty, I really can not believe how far you are going today.

either your handle has been hijacked or you are angry about somethign. But to defend a guy who threw a shoe at a leader of a country is very unbecoming. You were the same person who claimed the protesters against the Iranian president when he went to NY. You are the same person who found understanding when certain books, quotes, articles, film clips came out and got all those Muslims hot under the collar.

I am going to put up posters of OBL, the Iranian President, Hamas and I am going to dry a pig over all of them and put them　all around Shibuya, Omotesandou, etc... When the masses come at me, and the J Cops beat me down, are you going to defend me?

As for the shoe being this so called "insult", can anyone tell what place on the planet is it NOT an insult? There are more articles today on "throwing a shoe is considered an insult in Arab culture" duh!

Lmao Smith you act as you know anyone and everyone.

Name one person I have said is guilty without proof he was? You cant becasue I have never said anything of the such. I actually say they are innocent until proven guilty. If the brother had visited him and seen him and said he was a mess then I would believe him, but he did, hasmt, and with that I cant take his account as fact nor truth.

LMAO. please look past your tunnel and actually see something other then your doomsday BS all the time.

Your swwing you miss you swing again and again. Why dont you just give up and stop trying to label everyone who isnt on your warped logic side?

As far as getting blood on the ground after a take down. You sure havent been a person taking someone down before. I suggest since I doubt you can get the hands one aspect of a takledown you should watch a show like cops. Blood happens a lot when taken down a perp.

It's disgusting that the dog bit its own kid for its master! and everyone knows this sort of light offensively behavior is not guilty in all civilized countries even in Russia or China. Many examples are available to prove my words! Suppose anyone think this is a successful US made democratic system then I believe even Bush won't agree with him!

likeitis: "Looking at the hoarde of people surrounding al-Zeidi (who we cannot see thanks to the logos and crap at the bottom of the screen, as if that could not have been removed!) it looks like some of them are kicking him."

Not only that, it is physically impossible for some of the men to be making the upper body movements they are doing without stomping something. It's clear that at least one or two of them were stomping al-Zeidi.

Nippon5: "And Smith Im not 100% sure what happened just as I Know you (even with your story creating powers) are not 100% sure what happened...."

Your compliment as to my powers of creativity aside, I'm happy you admit that you do not know what's going on...

"... But I do have the story posted and in that story it states the facts as known right now"

No, it does not state the facts, it PRESENTS what some are calling facts, but are not allowing to be confirmed by outside sources. I remember way back when that Saddam 'stated as fact' that he had no weapons of mass destruction, and people like yourself simply refused to believe him because you didn't want to. Instead you believed what your intelligence 'stated as facts'. In the case of the non-existent Iraqi WMDs, people were even allowed to go in and verify but STILL you didn't believe, but went in to attack anyway. As it turns out, you should have believed Saddam and not the faulty intelligence of the bush and co. government, but that's in the past.

My point is that it is perfectly healthy and logical to be suspicious of 'facts' given to you by one side, and not confirmed by many different sources, and particularly those outside of the people who benefit from keeping the person in question quiet. Why is he not allowed to see relatives? Why is only the government allowed to present 'the facts' for us and the man not allowed to speak to the press?

These are rhetorical questions, of course. He's not allowed because if he tells the truth -- that he was beaten and possibly coerced into asking for a pardon -- his message becomes even more powerful as both a statement against the powers that be, and how the system has failed, and that is absolutely NOT what the fledgling government needs/wants at the moment.

"And one last thing. Maybe just maybe Smith someone is telling the truth and he wasnt forced to write it and maybe he wasnt beat to do it."

B-b-but a minute ago you said pretty clearly that you are going only on facts; so which is it? you going on stated facts here or on your person assumptions? 'maybe just maybe someone is telling the truth' means that they may also be lying, my friend.

"... Maybe just maybe you had a life where you have to question everyone because they abused you or used you, but I tend to believe the people until they are proven wrong, kinda like innocent until proven guilty."

My a$$ you do! Again, with Saddam it was guilty until proven innocent, and even THEN you still had to twist facts to find him innocent of having WMDs and make up other grounds for the invasion being justified. You have stated in some posts negative things towards Muslims in general, who are far from being guilty of anything. You don't believe that this man could have thrown his shoes at Bush for any justified means and that he's a villain, and yet automatically believe that he himself drafted the request for a pardon without question the possibility that it could be forced. If you believe in people until they are proven wrong, why don't you believe what the brother says -- that he knows his brother well and that the latter would never write such a letter? Nope... you believe only the words of a judge who benefits the system, not of an intimate relative who has known his brother since birth.

In other words: treating people as innocent until proven guilty is a noble concept only when it is used for ALL people, and not just used selectively.

Some things to bear in mind:

One reporter reported blood on the floor after al-Zeidi was taken away. No way to say whose blood for sure, but come on. We know whose blood it was. It generally takes more than a "take down" to produce blood. Even noting the presence of objects, its not like he had a lot of room to fly about.

Looking at the hoarde of people surrounding al-Zeidi (who we cannot see thanks to the logos and crap at the bottom of the screen, as if that could not have been removed!) it looks like some of them are kicking him.

Not long, after al-Zeidi is taken away, it seems that someone demands the camera be turned off (I don't speak a word of Arabic). And the camera is turned off, apparently the only camera in the room.

Everybody is free and clear to be as suspicious as they want considering these and more. Just remember that we know very little for sure. I am not believing much of anything unless it comes DIRECTLY from a third party or is clear in the video. This "he said" crap just isn't cutting the mustard.

Blah blah blah again Smith.

Im posting on the article and not what I think happened or what is my dream that happened.

Smith only beating I get is your post "beating" around the article and ignoring what they said. I do love your way of creating the story as it goes and look forward to more additions to it from you.

Adaydream I saw the take down posted on the Geektube your quoting, and Ive taken down people before as an Officer so I understand from the video that he could have gotten black and blue from a take down. I would love for you top show me how you can say what happened at the take down when the video doesnt show anything of it other then the top of the SS and Iraqi guards, and not the perp. But hey your on par with Smith on the make it up as it goes thing.

I can only go by what the ARTICLE is saying and it is confirming he was "beat" at the takedown time, and only has bruises on his face and eyes (not broken arms and such as Smith quotes over and over).

And Smith Im not 100% sure what happened just as I Know you (even with your story creating powers) are not 100% sure what happened. But I do have the story posted and in that story it states the facts as known right now. I never said they couldnt/wouldnt/shouldnt beat the man, but I also didnt try to create a alter story like you are trying to do.

Sezwho2 from the article it says he wrote the letter, I am going to guess the Judge asked him if he wrote it (I know Im going on an assumption here, but I would ask that question if I was the judge) and thats why the judge stated that to the press.

I think likitis is correct in this post, we dont know for sure what happened, we can only go by the information provided by the people who have seen him.

If you see him Smith or Adaydream then please take pictures and report it so we can find the truth, until then we have to take the judges word for it until proven wrong or right.

And one last thing. Maybe just maybe Smith someone is telling the truth and he wasnt forced to write it and maybe he wasnt beat to do it. Maybe just maybe you had a life where you have to question everyone because they abused you or used you, but I tend to believe the people until they are proven wrong, kinda like innocent until proven guilty.

Stay focused everyone.

The words of a judge are great and all, but he is still a lot closer to the government than say, a member of the Red Crescent, or a journalist, or a family member.

The fact that no one from either of those three groups was allowed to see al-Zeidi from after the incident AND STILL CAN'T, is ample reason for everyone to be EXTREMELY suspicious. Keeping him isolated until his wounds heal SIMPLY WON'T DO.

I am of a mind to think he was beaten mostly at the press conference myself, but I cannot confirm nor deny reports that he was hit in the face with a rifle butt, had either an arm or a hand broken, (nor where or when those events occured) and/or is quote "in good health" (which even a tortured man could be). No one else can confirm nor deny them either.

I am glad to hear a judge has given us this little confirmation that the man is not lying on the rack or being pitch-capped, but the word of the judge is also not nearly enough.

Al-Zeidi has made himself into a seriously dangerous man. He has unleashed a whole lot more than a pair of shoes. People are taking courage from his act and it could unleash a lot of rebellion. I think that is why Iraq is keeping him under wraps, but they are playing with fire. Show him and they get trouble. Don't show him and they get trouble. I think this statement by the judge is an attempt to do both while doing neither and avoid as much unrest as possible by sowing confusion. Its worked here in this thread, which is why I urge you all again as I did in the beginning of this post: stay focused.

Nippon5: Sounds like you've taken a bit of a beating yourself from the post above. While I have no doubt you wrote the post yourself, I find it amusing that you entertain no doubts whatsoever that the man in question wrote the request for a pardon without the slightest duress being put upon him. Oh, but that's right -- "(some people said) he did it on his own and not beat to do it." They simply canNOT be lying!

Hell, if I beat a guy within an inch of his life, break his arms (or at least one) and hospitalize him, of COURSE I'm going to say I didn't coerce him into writing a letter that I want written!

Do you also believe Japanese police when they say that all of their 99% convictions are based on the suspects' willing confessions, despite the bruises and injuries they suffer in the camera-less interrogation rooms?

Apparently you didn't see the video Nippon5 of the take down. There wasn't fight. He went down from one blow. Not some wrestling match where there's collateral damage.

But then you're the only one who didn't see it. But just in case you missed it. < :-)

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=9uIj0YvDBKE

Nippon5,

I don't think that the statement that the "judge also confirmed that al-Zeidi had written a letter of apology to al-Maliki" means that al-Zeidi did it "on his own". It just means that the letter was written by his hand. It's possible that al-Zeidi wrote the letter voluntarily, but the judge does not say so.

Furthermore, what do we really know about the judge? Ramsey Clark--along with a UN agency and Human Rights Watch--found the Iraqi justice system wanting in the trial of Saddam. It isn't clear that the recent round-up of alleged Baathists is not an attempt to solidify power in the face of upcoming elections. If al-Zeidi's brother is correct, he seems to have been denied access to counsel and (wanted) visitors. I think it quite premature to laud the democratic justice system in Iraq.

Personally, I think Bush should publicly ask al-Maliki to consider giving clemency. I don't think it is enough simply to not press charges. I think an example of forgiveness is in order. The only one who appears to have been hurt is al-Zeidi.

He had the stones to stand up to the man!

He's like a Shoe Guevara !

Know what I mean?

Smith how do you come up with your warped logic of "guess they can no longer deny the man was beaten and coerced into requesting the pardon. "

since the story said. Friday into the beating of an Iraqi journalist moments after he threw his shoes at President George W Bush. Which says he got injured in the taking down right after the shoe throwing and not beat in the jail for a confession.

and this statement The judge also confirmed that al-Zeidi had written a letter of apology to al-Maliki

Which says he did it on his own and not beat to do it.

Talk about stating what you want it to be instead of the actual info posted in the article.

As for the rest of your arguement, well thats destroyed in the above two statements from the article.

One of his brothers, Uday

Uday, now there's a name to be proud of. Probably named after Saddam's sadistic, psyco son.

Ah well, so much for the excuses by USARonin and co. that this man 'freely' asked for a pardon; guess they can no longer deny the man was beaten and coerced into requesting the pardon. Nor can they pretend that Iraq is a bastion of freedom that harbours shoe-tossers without punishment, while in other countries he would be jailed, beaten, and or killed (ie. saying Iraq is the greatest example of democracy on earth). I have no doubt the guy would have been eliminated if that would not martyr him and overthrow the fledgling government.

He said al-Zeidi could choose not to pursue charges related to the beating and did not specify why he decided to open an investigation. - Because al-Zeidi decided he wanted to live.

But al-Kinani, the judge, said the shoes had been destroyed by investigators trying to determine if they had contained explosives. - They were probably stolen by the Secret Service. Why, they couldn't protect the president?

He shouldn't have thrown his shoes, but now Al-Zeidi is my newest hero. < :-)

The shoes will be on EBay and this poor soul that had the stones to stand up will be on a crucifix.