I appreciate what you say but I would find it extremely distressing to see the full weight of Iraqi justice put on him when our own president's crimes have so far exceeded that of throwing a shoe or two that such a result would in essence prove Glenn Greenwald's difficult to argue with contention of a two-tiered justice system.

Let him go, hundreds of thousands of civilian Iraqis died because of Bush - a thrown shoe is hardly a remedy for that.

Paul, I'd say a couple of days of community service for throwing the show and that's it for the punishment. Most likely if he had just shouted it would have been almost as effective and, perhaps, they would have not detained him. Also, I'm wondering how Iraq ended up with no First Amendment? I would have thought that Jerry Bremer upon leaving would say "don't forget to include a First Amendment in your new constitution, just like the U.S. has." I guess that was a detail that fell through the cracks.

Brave and angry man. There are probably many more like him.

Good post, Paul. I'm particularly interested to see how this is treated in Iraq -- because the throwing of a shoe or showing its sole is a highly symbolic gesture in Arab culture, which seems like it would make this much more likely to fall under a speech code than under an assault law, you know?

In the middle east, displaying the soles of your shoes to someone or hitting with and/or throwing shoes is a universally understood insult. As such I think it would be covered as "speech" in a constitutional sense. Besides the fuker missed.

Having lived in Egypt for awhile, the shoe throwing was a very loud and clear message. I fear that the man will be punished far more severely for his "crime" than Bush will be for his. I say, keep the journalist in the middle east away from American presidents, but throw the book at Bush and let's call it even.

What a fascinating little discussion of culture, law and politics this has spurred. Regardless of the implications related to free speech, I wish he had spoken a little more clearly.

Paul, making sense here. Speech, yes. Trying to harm other people, no.

But, you may be surprised that I opted to just go with the humor angle in a post I did on this.

Blog Whoring My Post on Bush and the Shoe

Good discussion folks, and not surprised, McGarrett -

A part of this story is that it was one of the funniest things I've ever seen on television ... this notwithstanding it's other very serious implications...

I'm not so sure throw the book at him is an effective way of putting what should be done in this situation. He should be charged with attempted assault and face whatever criminal penalty the law in Iraq assigns for that offense. He should not be treated any more harshly because his attempt was made on the President of the United States than he would be if it had been made on a shopkeeper or on his producer or director at work.

I think the Iraqis would do well to adopt a time-honored tradition used for embarrassing public figures in the west - the cream pie.

I'd hate to see people here begin adopting the shoe throw, despite the fact that it is a fucking hilarious visual. Bush is pretty quick for an older guy, but it should also be said that al-Zeidi is a piss poor aim with the shoe. He was probably too jacked up to make a good throw.

I can't blame the shoe thrower;In fact, I applaud him. Probably thousands of Iraqis wish they they had thrown their shoes at him long ago. Bush was lucky not to have worse thrown at him by Iraqis, considering the damage his first strike war of aggression did to their country. A regionally appropriate insult that came after five years of provocation and chaos. As Cartouche pointed out, Al-Zaedi will probably received more punishment for throwing his shoes than George W. Bush did for dropping bombs.

I'm afraid this man will suffer much more punishment than he deserves - he can't be allowed to go free, because it is assault. Community service, a fine, a (protected and unharmed) night in jail - these are the limits to a punishment of throwing a shoe, at least in my book. You might convince me of more, just because we would want to discourage people from throwing shoes at just any president, but I think I'd have to sepnd the energy thinking about defending Bush, and it seems few, so far, are doing as much.

Millions around the world are wishing they had done the same (no less those in America) and precious few are even seeing it as a crime against Bush.

But with the argument that it could be free speech - I don't think so. Although his actions are a political/social statement, they can cause bodily harm. Once free speech is allowed to inflict possibly lasting pain on another human being, it ceases to be just speech.

Would we feel it could possibly be free speech if a shoe had been thrown at Mother Teresa, to protest her religion? To truly be an argument of free speech, it would have be applied evenly, no matter who it is acted upon, no matter who acts it out.

Whatever the verdict on free speech, I did laugh for a solid five minutes after watching the video.

What if it's not poor aim? If he missed deliberately, then it's not an assault, which requires a certain intent. Instead, it's an act that amounts to symbolic speech - the equivalent, in that cultural context, of burning a flag. So I say it's speech - and I say, "Hear, hear!"

Muntadar al-Zeidi is being touted as a hero all around the Arab world. Not that I condone his actions, America did go to war to free him and all Iraqis from living in a non-free state. First Amendment Right or not…. His action is a way to express in democratic right.

If he runs for office in the next ‘free’ Iraq Elections, he will probably be the next Iraqi Prime Minister (if the election was held today).

Throwing shoes as a means of protest? And he should be prosecuted? I dont think so. He just found a way to martyrdom and yet live to see another day.

If we are to use the First Amendment argument, a uniquely American form of law, then we should think about this journalist would be treated under American jurisprudence. He would be investigated, and if they discovered this was his first incident of shoe throwing, he would get a slap on the wrist. And if he threw a shoe at the President in Buffalo rather than Baghdad, he would be held quietly for a while, fined and released, unless he pleaded innocent and held out for a "jury of his peers." That would be an interesting show to watch. 10 years on he would be the subject of a CNN story "whatever happened to . . . ?"

In the end, what disturbs me most is the contempt that Bush is held in, and how that translates into contempt for the Presidency, and by extention, whoever holds that office. So I find it hard to laugh with many of the other commentators to this blog. I am both saddened and concerned for the feelings of the world regarding the institution of the President of the United States.

Bush deserves respect! How can any respectful citizen of this country respect this man? He lied to each and everyone of you, and he has all but destroyed the reputation of this country during his 8 years in office.
Upset by an Iraq citizen throwing a pair of shoes at Bush! How about some fresh cow dung, instead!

This guy is a hero in Iraq and his detention may be another flash point sparking more rebellion against our illegal occupation. Iraqis are demonstrating in the streets demanding his release. Bush is lower than a dog.

"al-Zeidi is a piss poor aim with the shoe"

Huh? Were you watching the same video I was? He was dead on--if Bush hadn't ducked either shoe would have totally beaned him. My husband was watching it with me, and we both commented on what a good shoe-pitcher he was.

I could so watch this video all day long.

(That being said, yes, al-Zeidi needs to take his lumps. Even if Bush didn't.)

You can throw words and not hurt someone physically. As much as I loathe Bush, throwing a shoe with intent to hit, is assault. Had he hit him, add battery. That' s by U.S. standards. I'm not sure at all what will happen to this poor guy in Iraq. I would hope that Bush might "pardon" him or "bail him out". It was wrong, but I can see him doing life or worse for it in that current climate.

I agree 500% with your last statement: "throw the book at him"! I truly hope that Bush and Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld, among others, will be investigated for war crimes and high treason, for deliberately bankrupting this nation, for invading Iraq for the benefit of Exxonmobil and destroying countless lives, both here and in Iraq, for forcing the bankrupt USA to now deal with the "most dangerous" group of returning veterans in our nation's history, as many have said. This has been the most criminal and corrupt administration in our nation's history, a fact never discussed in the corporate-controlled media! But then, media personalities continue to sell out at their own peril, as whores for corporations. I know those who firmly believe media types will be swinging from lamp posts one of these days, that they will be held accountable. I doubt all that will happen....but then.....this is a violent nation, so who knows? Besides, the anger is growing....

I have to give Bush credit, he can duck a shoe almost as good as he ducks questions. Oh wait, much better actually.

I happen to think it's very refreshing to see someone say fuck you to the establishment and actually get off his feat, and take off his shoes. People should take many more opportunities to throw shoes at certain heads of state and people who wage war for financial gain. I only wish it was a member of the American military who did it. He should get punished, no doubt, because it is kind of an assault but I hope others join him in some footwear tossing. And I hope he gets off with a couple of weeks in jail. I applaud the man's guts. I pity him though.

He was just trying to give W a soul. (oko,ok,ok...never again)

What is more disturbing is Bush's response to a reporter after the incident. Bush claims he thought it was amusing. 4200 American servicemen and women dead, 20,000 plus wounded. Iraqi death toll impossible to count but estimates range between 150,000 and 1,000,000. And Bush finds the incident "amusing", then the famous smirk. What is wrong with this man and why did he get to lead our nation, again? Suddenly I don't feel very well.

It was an act of civil disobedience. So, it was sort of a speech act that violated the law. Or I assume it violates some law - in this country it would at the very least be assault.

Civil disobedience should be judged by whether the underlying cause is just and the tactic is a good one. Without writing too much in this comment space - I'd say the cause was just, and the tactic proper and effective.

Prof Levinson- Yes, what Muntadar al-Zeidi did was not purely speech; it was assault on a public official, and he should be arrested and appropriate charges pressed. But instead, he was immediately "beaten until he cried like a woman"- you can in fact hear it for your fucking self in his screams on the video during Bush's Q&A if you care to. Why don't you watch the feed again? Reportedly, he arrived at Camp Cropper late last night with broken ribs and numerous contusions. He also has burns on his thighs, presumably from torture.

So. I generally hugely enjoy your posts, but you are off base on this. Your pedantic armchair exegesis of the difference between protected speech and violent action is comical and offensive against the obscenity of carnage Bush is responsible for in Iraq. Bush-- unfortunately representative of the misguided sense of exceptionalism held by most Americans due to a lifetime of socialization and propaganda-- believes that we can legitimately drop bombs on wedding parties or houses full of children in the hope that a terrorist may be amongst them, that we can systematically and cold-bloodedly bomb out the power grid and sanitation system of an entire nation, knowing we will set off infectious disease epidemic that will kill millions, that we can invade and destabilize a sovereign nation and destroy and loot it in the name of seizing control of oil, and on and on – but any anger or retaliatory acts are unconscionable and unworthy of legitimate consideration. And you yourself want to debate the legitimacy of throwing a couple of shoes at if not the architect at least the figurehead of all of this, given the opportunity? Please, man. Go back to reviewing TV shows.

Actually, now that I think about it, if Bush was still an owner of a second-rate baseball team he might have given this guy a $200mm contract. Pretty good arm. Oh, the opportunities missed.

Do we honestly believe that in this day and age of metal detectors that a steel toed shoe would be allowed in a press conference with two world leaders? I can't even wear my Rockport dress shoes with steel reinforcements in them in an airport. I just had to throw that in there.

Paul, I would agree with a great deal of your post. I don't know where Gordon sees such a difference in what we posted. The only difference between us is that I would never have "Fox News" as a reference point in one of my posts. Otherwise, I agree that what this man did is wrong. He could have stood and stated his opinion of Mr. Bush and then he would get dragged out and no doubt pummeled. Then we would have a true abuse of the First Amendment on our hands.

First, my apologizes on posting these comments days after the event. Doctors have limited the amount of watching the news due to depression. Did someone get the size of the culprits? I am impressed on the ducking abilities of Pres. Bush. Without his quickness, I feel for sure impact would have been "head-on". Of course the Iraqi journalist only did what a lot of people have only thought of doing. We, as Americans have been taught to "voice" our opinions and concerns as the First Amendment dictates. From what I have seen over the years concerning Iraq, these citizens use actions, instead of words. Whether be a car bomb or bombs strapped to a soon to be "martyr" to get their points across. I shake my head in disgust imposing our ideals on another culture concurrently destroying our own country in the process. (No matter what commentators may have you think)! I just happy the journalist chose shoes and nothing more lethal. My dream would be for all, including myself, to have tolerance, understanding and respect for one another. It doesn't hurt to dream, I guess.

If the journalist regrets throwing the shoes, maybe a face-to-face apology to Pres. Bush would prove the bigger man. However, things as they are, it would not surprise me that this gentleman end up dead. This would give more reasons for more unrest in that region.

whitenoise wrote: "I generally hugely enjoy your posts, but you are off base on this. Your pedantic armchair exegesis of the difference between protected speech and violent action is comical and offensive against the obscenity of carnage Bush is responsible for in Iraq."

I'm sorry you were offended, but if had read my post a little more carefully, you'd have noticed that the "obscenity" of what Bush did was not its point. Rather, my point was to explore what is worthy of First Amendment protection and what is not. If you'd read more of work - my books or my other blog posts, here and elsewhere - you'd know that a major concern of mine is pushing back the government's frequent trampling of the First Amendment. As part of that opposition, I think it important not to confuse assault, however warranted, with speech and press.

If that strikes you as "pedantic" - well, then, too bad, live with it. :)