Saudi woman, gang-raped, is sentenced to prison and flogging

[shereads]

She was found guilty of being alone with the men who raped her.


When she appealed her sentence, the court doubled it.


Tonight a talk-show host on MSNBC asked a Bush apologist whether the president, who ostensibly invaded Iraq to end human rights abuses and bring about democracy, lacks "intellectual credibility" in dealing with human-rights abuses by Saudi Arabia. If anything could be more bizarre than imprisoning a rape victim for having been in the vicinity of potential rapists, it's this: using the words intellectual and credibility in the same breath as George W. Bush.

Request:

Who can find that photo of Bush holding hands with the Saudi prince? Can they be prosecuted for that? Or is illegal hand-holding just a chick thing?

 

[Pure]

hey, she only got 6 mos. that's lenient in them there parts. and the guys, allegedly got at least 2 years apiece.

progress.

it's worth underscoring that the Saudi's, except for maybe the Abu Dubai folks, are the most loyal and favored of US allies in the mideast.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I suppose it's only a matter of time before someone blames this on global warming.

I don't mean to defend Bush, but US policy toward Saudi is hardly original to this president - it's been the policy of every president since Eisenhower. IOW, it's a cheap shot to lay it at Bush's feet, and suggests either rank partisanship or a simplistic view of foreign affairs.

The one unambiguously good thing about the Iraq adventure is that it got US troops out of Saudi Arabia - another policy that was supported by Bush 2's predecessor.

 

[shereads]

I suppose it's only a matter of time before someone blames this on global warming.

I don't mean to defend Bush, but US policy toward Saudi is hardly original to this president - it's been the policy of every president since Eisenhower. IOW, it's a cheap shot to lay it at Bush's feet, and suggests either rank partisanship or a simplistic view of foreign affairs.

The one unambiguously good thing about the Iraq adventure is that it got US troops out of Saudi Arabia - another policy that was supported by Bush 2's predecessor.

Oh good. You're here.

My work is done.

In case you missed part of my post, what was under question was whether the Iraq war and its alleged reason - Saddam's human rights abuses - makes Bush an even less credible critic of Saudi human rights abuses than the kissing and hugging alone might make him.

Also, there were the Saudis who were allowed to leave the U.S. in the days following 9/11, which Cheney later denied, and admitted to only when a journalist produced proof...etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, what's the point...

Have fun.

 

[cloudy]

When even Canada has spoken out strongly against the Saudi's treatment of this woman, we end up looking mealy-mouthed, at best.

But then, what else is new?

 

[shereads]

When even Canada has spoken out strongly against the Saudi's treatment of this woman, we end up looking mealy-mouthed, at best.

But then, what else is new?

The president expressed shock. And awe.

 

[Belegon]

All y'all are late....

http://www.willbelegon.blogspot.com/

...and what's more, you're not reading my blog! *grump*

BTW, she got six months AND 200 lashes. The men who raped her were not the unrelated male, that was a man she was driving with when she got nabbed... and supposedly the judge increased the sentences on all involved, including the seven men.

We remain a joke in the eyes of much of the world for acting like we have a moral stance to take and then supporting/using torture, funding criminals, being a slave to corporate interests and ignoring human rights violations unless they are being committed by those who are already our enemies.

We claim to be a "Christian nation." Do you really think Jesus Christ would have refused to condemn this action? A man who regularly pissed off his own followers by speaking what he saw as the truth?

 

[Lisa Denton]

The president expressed shock. And awe.

That was his natural expression, before he heard what anybody was talkin about.

 

[Boxlicker101]

From what I read about the case, the men all got long prison sentences, which they should have gotten. The woman was jailed and flogged for being with a man who was not her relative. This had nothing to do with the rape, except that was how her offense came to be known.

I think that is a really stupid law, as do most Americans. However, do you know that if I were to have mutually consensual and mutually enjoyable sex with a 16 year old girl, I could go to prison for 30 years? Most of the world would call that a miscarriage of justice, but it is the law in CA.

In some states, two men or two women could have mutually consensual sex and go to prison for long periods. Those are stupid laws, but they are on the books, and can be enforced.

I point these things out, not to defend the Saudi law, which is indefensible, but to point out that the USA has no right carping about somebody else's stupid and repressive laws when there are so many, almost as bad, in this country.

 

[shereads]

I point these things out, not to defend the Saudi law, which is indefensible, but to point out that the USA has no right carping about somebody else's stupid and repressive laws when there are so many, almost as bad, in this country.

So if a dictator had a law against, say, not saying "Long live Saddam" when you finished licking his boots; and if the punishment were being thrown into Abu Gharaib and tortured, we should stay out of it.

I see.

BTW, the reason you can't have legal, mutually consentual sex with a 16 year old girl is that one of you is considered too emotionally and mentally undeveloped to give informed consent. Often, it's the teenager.

In the middle ages, people couldn't afford to wait until they both knew what they were getting into before diving into baby-making. Neither the babies nor their parents were expected to live very long. These days, we not only have a few decades in which to make babies before we croak - which removes imminent death as an excuse for having sex with girls who may or may not know what they're getting into - we also know that teenaged brains have yet to develop the inhibiting factor that enables grown-ups to consider the possible consequences of sex.

When two 16-year-olds have sex with each other, they can both be said not to have known any better. There's no informed consent, but neither is there a victim. When one teenaged girl has sex with one middle-aged man, he is rightly assumed to have taken advantage of her unfinished brain. There ought to be a law. So there is.

Keeping it zipped around kids is not an unreasonable thing to expect of adults in a civilized world, is it? Punishing her would be. Unless we owed her abuser hundreds of billions of dollars, which loan enabled a humongous tax cut. In that case, a judge could throw the book at her and buy him tickets to the Super Bowl. We'd have little choice but to turn a blind eye.

 

[sr71plt]

I think global warming made her misbehave.

 

[Just-Legal]

So if a dictator had a law against, say, not saying "Long live Saddam" when you finished licking his boots; and if the punishment were being thrown into Abu Gharaib and tortured, we should stay out of it.

I see.

BTW, the reason you can't have legal, mutually consentual sex with a 16 year old girl is that one of you is considered too emotionally and mentally undeveloped to give informed consent. Often, it's the teenager.

In the middle ages, people couldn't afford to wait until they both knew what they were getting into before diving into baby-making. Neither the babies nor their parents were expected to live very long. These days, we not only have a few decades in which to make babies before we croak - which removes imminent death as an excuse for having sex with girls who may or may not know what they're getting into - we also know that teenaged brains have yet to develop the inhibiting factor that enables grown-ups to consider the possible consequences of sex.

When two 16-year-olds have sex with each other, they can both be said not to have known any better. There's no informed consent, but neither is there a victim. When one teenaged girl has sex with one middle-aged man, he is rightly assumed to have taken advantage of her unfinished brain. There ought to be a law. So there is.

Keeping it zipped around kids is not an unreasonable thing to expect of adults in a civilized world, is it? Punishing her would be. Unless we owed her abuser hundreds of billions of dollars, which loan enabled a humongous tax cut. In that case, a judge could throw the book at her and buy him tickets to the Super Bowl. We'd have little choice but to turn a blind eye.

Uhm, Sher... I was 16 when I lost my virginity (ok I'm in the UK). At the risk of derailing the thread, I found that a bit insulting...

--

On topic, yes, we should speak out about the sentance and flogging over being with an unrelated male, but clouding the issue with the fact she was raped isn't the way to go.

 

[shereads]

Uhm, Sher... I was 16 when I lost my virginity (ok I'm in the UK). At the risk of derailing the thread, I found that a bit insulting...

Sorry it offends, but I'm not making it up. Teenaged brains are not fully developed. In debating the need to protect teenaged girls and boys from adult sexual predation, some find it relevant that teenaged brains not only lack some of the protective inhibitions that help adults curb their impulses, but also process information differently than adults - specifically, when interpreting facial expressions and other non-verbal clues to other people's moods and intentions, adults rely on the frontal cortex which governs reason and planning, while teenagers mostly use the amygdala, which rules instinctual and "gut" responses and is incapable of making subtle distinctions. Consider how this one factor alone might hinder a teenager's capacity to make an informed judgement about the cute guy in the hot car. (Is that a threatening leer or is he just happy to see her?)

Here's the research:

Teenaged brains are a work in progress

With side-by-side neuroscan pictures showing teenager and adult brain activity:

Teenagers' immature brain circuitry causes underage girls to consider having sex with Boxlicker.

[/threadjack]

 

[scheherazade_79]

I wish we could find an alternative to oil so that we could just cut off all ties with countries like Saudi. Despite all the riches, they're stuck in the fucking Middle Ages.

 

[shereads]

I wish we could find an alternative to oil so that we could just cut off all ties with countries like Saudi. Despite all the riches, they're stuck in the fucking Middle Ages.

And we're stuck with the consequences of decades of political pandering, so convoluted that the only way to guage who our next enemy will be, is by calculating the money spent and favors bestowed to keep them under the thumb of whatever tyrant promised to help bring down our mutual enemy; times the degree of secrecy, added to the square root of the number of quasi-legal acts kept hidden under the guise of national security.

In brief, our sins all seem to work nicely for a decade or two; then they bite us on the butt.

Hell, the only people left in Pakistan who don't hate us because of Iraq are the corrupt leaders we keep in power by the use of duct tape and sleight-of-hand. The people hate us, and they have nukes. Reagan knew they were developing the bomb and he kept it from Congress to avoid sanctions against them, because sanctions against Pakistan would have interfered with his secret arms-for-hostages bake sale. Of course, Reagan knew that Pakistan would always be our pal, so why shouldn't they have nukes? He was so wise.

 

[Liar]

BTW, the reason you can't have legal, mutually consentual sex with a 16 year old girl is that one of you is considered too emotionally and mentally undeveloped to give informed consent. Often, it's the teenager.

Then why is it perfectly legal in some states, and in most other western nations?

Are Califorrnian and Floridian 16 year olds less mentally developed than for instance Minnesotan, Georgian, or Canadian ones?

Or could it be that it's a stupid and repressive law, based upon an arbitrary number chosen by people claiming moral superiority?

Clearly, it's not AS stupid and repressive as the Saudi law. And I'm sure most western courts would have the empathy to let it slide, if the investigation of a brutal rape case uncovbered an unrelated offense on the victim's part, figuring that she's suffered more than enough.

 

[scheherazade_79]

And we're stuck with the consequences of decades of political pandering, so convoluted that the only way to guage who our next enemy will be, is by calculating the money spent and favors bestowed to keep them under the thumb of whatever tyrant promised to help bring down our mutual enemy; times the degree of secrecy, added to the square root of the number of quasi-legal acts kept hidden under the guise of national security.

In brief, our sins all seem to work nicely for a decade or two; then they bite us on the butt.

Hell, the only people left in Pakistan who don't hate us because of Iraq are the corrupt leaders we keep in power by the use of duct tape and sleight-of-hand. The people hate us, and they have nukes. Reagan knew they were developing the bomb and he kept it from Congress to avoid sanctions against them, because sanctions against Pakistan would have interfered with his secret arms-for-hostages bake sale. Of course, Reagan knew that Pakistan would always be our pal, so why shouldn't they have nukes? He was so wise.

*sigh*

Yup

 

[emap]

It is not just a Saudi law, it is actually an islamic decree. To lower the number of children being made women were restricted from a whole hell of alot of things unless they are with a relative, and are covered head to toe in robes. I'm not sure if it just a male relative or any relative, get rather contradicting images and messages on that one.

Anyway, I don't like it, I prefer being able to run hilly nilly and wear what the hell I feel like, but then again I did not grow up in that society either. If I was to campaign to force them to remove all laws restricting women, I would be doing two things wrong. I would first of all be forcing my own personal opinion on them, which is seen as a rather christian thing to do, and I would be going against their religion, oddly enough is also seen as a christian thing, though actually almost all of them do that.

I'm not religious, but I am also not going to try and force my own set of morals on someone else, unless I am going to sleep with them. After that, I let them do whatever they want to do, so long as they are not in kind forcing their wants on someone else, as in say rape or murder.

Now if say they put the same restrictions on visiting women, I would have a problem with that. For the same reason I won't campaign against them doing it to their own women.

Her rapists are being penalized for their actions, she is being penalized for her actions, both broke the law, both are being given, to the Saudi legal system anyway, appropiate penalties.

I don't like the law in her case, but it is their law it is their way of life and really, unless they are forcing their laws on americans, we have no say in what they do. Besides a I really wish you would not do that statement.

I had to come back and edit for correctness in wording and suppose I should point out why the above is seen as a Christian thing to do. When a new peoples were discovered, even as recently as 1800's, they were deemed barbaric by some because they did not beleive in Christ as their savior and many went to the people and tried ever so hard to convert them. Sadly little respect was given to their beliefs, especially if they were visiting a righteous and 'proper' society. Not to say it was only Christians guilty of above, just they were generally the ones exploring and searching for new peoples to add to the flock.

 

[Vermilion]

I am not particularly religious, but I find it inestimably sad when the name of a religion becomes a byword for something negative. The principles and basic 'rules' of Christianity are such that those who follow the spirit of them, rather than the letter, are wonderful people. True Christians. Unfortunately this is so rare, and not just in Christianity, that the name of the religion has become a byword for scary, fundamentalist evangelistic behaviour, rather than the basic principles of the religion. <sigh>

 

[emap]

Oh my bad.

I did not word that correctly, seen as a christian thing to do instead of being a christian thing. Hang on going to reword that, simply saying this in a new post so it does not get all confusing for people later.

 

[cloudy]

When a new peoples were discovered, even as recently as 1800's, they were deemed barbaric by some because they did not beleive in Christ as their savior and many went to the people and tried ever so hard to convert them. Sadly little respect was given to their beliefs, especially if they were visiting a righteous and 'proper' society. Not to say it was only Christians guilty of above, just they were generally the ones exploring and searching for new peoples to add to the flock.

oh, gee...really?

 

[THROBBS]

... I would first of all be forcing my own personal opinion on them, which is seen as a rather christian thing to do, and I would be going against their religion, oddly enough is also seen as a christian thing, though actually almost all of them do that....

I know you were modifying your wording.
But I take offense at the fact that so many people "see" certain actions as Christian things to do.

Too often, it is true, people who are "christians" do do (heehee I said "do-do) non-Christian things and consequently misrepresent the name-sake of the religion. (BTW... doing "non-Christian" things is pretty much universally human, to some extent or another, not reserved for non-believers)

Colossians 3:12
Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience.

1 Peter 3:15
But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,<<< (do not shove it down their throats)

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

If I was to campaign to force them to remove all laws restricting women, I would be doing two things wrong. I would first of all be forcing my own personal opinion on them, which is seen as a rather christian thing to do, and I would be going against their religion, oddly enough is also seen as a christian thing, though actually almost all of them do that.

Yes, and if you had campaigned against slavery in the antebellum South you would have been doing the first, and the second to the extent slaveholders believed there was a religious basis for their institution.

Some things are just plain unjust, E, regardless of your "personal opinion" or their religious one. We have debated before what we can do about it if anything; my position is that we should not be afraid to say and should say very loudly that it is wrong to treat women second class citizens and they should stop it.

 

[togitc]

Of topic:
Am I the only one to find it funny that the guy with a penis reading a book is quoting the bible?

Sorry, back on topic.

Instead of Rape victim sentenced to prison and flogging the headline should read: Woman found in company of another man sentenced to prison and flogging. Which of course leaves out the fact that she was then raped and who would want that left out since it sounds like a better story? I mean come on! That would sell a lot of papers and get people talking about it AROUND THE WORLD!

Yes the woman was raped and all rapists should have their bits and pieces cut from their bodies but she was not jailed for being raped. Do I understand their laws? No. Do they make sense to me? No.

Honestly if I was the Saudi government or whoever made those laws I would be pointing to what happened to her and spinning it to show the law that she broke was in fact for her protection. All news needs is a proper spin right?

 

[THROBBS]

Of topic:
Am I the only one to find it funny that the guy with a penis reading a book is quoting the bible?
...

Not at all.

Cracks me up too!

and believe me, I had to look those up!

It is also my opinion that being a Christian does not make one asexual and genderless.