Meanwhile, subscription-only IraqSlogger adds that a media rights group called the Journalistic Freedoms Observatory has called for al-Zaidi to receive “amnesty,” citing “the prevalent tensions” in Iraq. By that they mean that Iraqis are still on the streets protesting al-Zaidi’s detention. McClatchy adds that some demonstrations have turned ugly. From Fallujah:

Students raised their shoes and threw rocks at American soldiers, who reportedly opened fire above the crowd. Protesters said that indirect fire wounded one student, Zaid Salih. U.S. forces haven’t confirmed the account.

“We demonstrated to express our support for Muntathar al Zaidi, but we were surprised with the entrance of the U.S. military,” said Ahmed Ismail, one of the protesters. “Unconsciously, we raised our shoes expressing our support for al Zaidi, but they attacked us.”

My position is it is regrettable that any Americans died. It is regrettable that they had to die, but I believe they did have to die. The threat we knew about was the chemical capability that Saddam Hussein had used against his own people. The potential for biological agents were real. There was evidence that there was an ongoing nuclear program, we had been surprised at how far advanced it was before. The danger was inaction could have resulted in the death of a great many more Americans than 4,000. And that’s the reason I’m still delighted that we did what we did.”

Of course, there were no chemical weapons, no biological weapons, and no nuclear program of any significance. What remains is a miscalculation of epic proportions and the small comfort that we no more have to listen to Frank Gaffney than we do 9/11-truthers.

The senior lawyer, Dheyaa Saadi, head of the Union of Lawyers in Iraq and one of the country’s most high-profile lawyers, said that he had volunteered to defend Mr. Zaidi if the judge elects to detain him pending further court hearings.

“I will introduce myself as his lawyer and demand the case be closed and Muntader be released because he did not commit a crime,” said Mr. Saadi. “He only freely expressed himself to the occupier, and he has such a right according to international law.”

I am no international-law expert, but I’d be curious to see the Right To Throw Shoes in any lawbook. Still, obviously, anyone who’d defend al-Zaidi is a Baathist an enemy of the Real Iraq, a country that has already reelected Ahmed Chalabi prime minister and president simultaneously.

Oh, and would it have killed President Bush or Dana Perino to have publicly stated that al-Zaidi shouldn’t be physically harmed in Iraqi custody?

For my part, I don’t understand why Dave thinks that U.S. troops are in any sense “brushed aside” by al-Zaidi’s actions. Who’s brushing them aside, exactly? The Iraqis? Well, yeah, sure — they don’t like being occupied, and don’t particularly feel grateful to the U.S. troops who comprise the occupation. Would it be any other way if, say, the Iraqi army marched into Tennessee and said that Tennessee was going to implement a totally new political system and part of doing so involved reserving to the Iraqis the right to burst into the homes of individual Tennesseeans and detain those who resisted the new way of doing things?

Another thing about al-Zaidi. I’m not going to say any names here for the time being. But I’ve been noticing on the internets that people are saying he’s a Baathist because of this New York Times Baghdad Bureau blog post saying al-Zaidi was “the head of the student union under Saddam Hussein.” Now that’s missing the point. First of all, Iraqis under Saddam did whatever they had to do to survive given the reality of a totalitarian regime. Baghdad metal band Acrassicauda wrote a song praising Saddam so they could get some funding for equipment. Did al-Zaidi head his student union because he wanted to head a student union or because he believes deeply in the glory of Saddam Hussein? I don’t know and you don’t either.

And it’s completely irrelevant. al-Zaidi has become a symbol in Iraq and the Middle East because the occupation of Iraq is an unwelcome intrusion. Calling al-Zaidi a Baathist is a particularly pathetic way to put one’s head in the sand instead of confronting this simple reality. (You know who were also Baathists? Thousands of the so-called Sons of Iraq.) Watch the al-Jazeera video that Siun put on FDL. Are all of these people Baathists? Or are they Iraqis who are expressing the perfectly normal nationalistic reaction that the foreign leader who ordered their country invaded and occupied is a bastard?

Last thing. From a counterinsurgency perspective, the deep antipathy Iraqis feel to the U.S. has to be considered a relevant fact. If al-Zaidi threw a shoe and Iraqis either didn’t care or denounced him in the streets, that would be strategically significant. Instead, they’re texting their friends about him and passing out candies in his name. That’s strategically significant. I, of course, haven’t served in Iraq, so I have no idea what goes through the head of an Iraq veteran when he or she sees al-Zaidi so venerated. But we’re not dealing with a population that wants the U.S. there, we’re dealing with a population that wants the U.S. out. No intelligent strategy can afford to assume otherwise.

The New York Times has more about the ways in which al-Zaidi has become a “folk hero.”