If This Isn’t Changed…
November 18th, 2007 at 05:22pm Mark Noonan
..then the name of Saudi Arabia will stink in the nostrils of all honest men and women:
A court in Saudi Arabia increased the punishment for a gang-rape victim after her lawyer won an appeal of the sentence for the rapists, the lawyer told CNN.
The 19-year-old victim was sentenced last year to 90 lashes for meeting with an unrelated male, a former friend from whom she was retrieving photographs. The seven rapists, who abducted the pair and raped both, received sentences ranging from 10 months to five years in prison.
The victim’s attorney, Abdulrahman al-Lahim, contested the rapists’ sentence, contending there is a fatwa, or edict under Islamic law, that considers such crimes Hiraba (sinful violent crime) and the punishment should be death.
“After a year, the preliminary court changed the punishment and made it two to nine years for the defendants,” al-Lahim said of the new decision handed down Wednesday. “However, we were shocked that they also changed the victim’s sentence to be six months in prison and 200 lashes.”
The judges more than doubled the punishment for the victim because of “her attempt to aggravate and influence the judiciary through the media,” according to a source quoted by Arab News, an English-language Middle Eastern daily newspaper.
Judge Saad al-Muhanna from the Qatif General Court also barred al-Lahim from defending his client and revoked his law license, al-Lahim said. The attorney has been ordered to attend a disciplinary hearing at the Ministry of Justice next month.
This is injustice; this is barbarism; this is uncvilised - this is the sort of thing which makes one wish for a punitive expedition against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
What the Saudis fail to understand - and the failure is greatest among Saudi Arabia’s religious leaders - is that enforced virtue is no virtue at all. For all their policing of the morals of Saudis, the brutal fact is that seven men gang-raped a woman and a man in a nation which supposedly will execute you for merely being homosexual. The morals of the Saudis have been warped by decades of a Satanic mindset that oppression equals religious purity. All the Saudis have done is make a world where a woman daren’t show her ankle, but violent criminals feel they have a free pass to commit the more horrendous of crimes. This innocent woman will get 200 lashes - her rapists, savages to a man, will serve as little as two years…after which, they could actually go out and rape this woman again in the expectation that she will once again be flogged for being a rape victim in Saudi Arabia.
The Saudis have relied upon their good friends in the United States to cover for them - even I, once upon a time, harbored good feelings towards the Saudis. No more - savagery like this has completely worn out any patience for the Saudis. The Saudis should learn swiftly that the world doesn’t need them - that their oil cannot be defended by cowards who flog women.
HAT TIP: Dean’s World
Entry Filed under: Foreign Affairs
30 Comments
1. mitche | November 18th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
You mean the same oil you so viperiously defend in other posts?
You mean the same Arabic Muslums you rightiously defend as a justification of Cheney/GWB invading Iraq?
Those same people???
Oh yeah, I forgot. The Iraqis are not of the same ethnic strand as the Saudis, nor do they have the royal-jelly connection to the Bush family.
But you must have overlooked this too in your self-rightious condemnation of what is obstensively very bad behavior….on the part of those and whose policies that you generally support.
So which is it Mark??? Are you for goodness or badness?
Inquiring minds want to know.
This post might be something to mention when you run for political office.
I know that I have a very long memory.
2. Mark Noonan | November 18th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
Mitche,
I’ve defended oil?
I think you’ve got yourself entirely too worked into the paranoid conspiracy theories about the war - in the end, our effort in Iraq is directed towards ending what is happening in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and elsewhere in the Moslem world which is the real fuel for Islamo-fascist terrorism.
3. liberalT | November 18th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
it is Mark? Interesting that none of these were the reasons that were given for the invasion in the first place. We were told it was about WMD. Then when they didn’t find any we were told that it was about the connection between Saddam and Al queda. Then we found out there weren’t any. Then we were told it was about democracy - until the polls started coming out about Iraqi people wanting the occupation to end. Now we are told that it is about “the war on terror”.
You know there was an interesting interview I saw with an Iraqi insurgent the other day. Before the war he owned a barber shop in Baghdad. After the fall of Saddam he joined the insurgency. When asked why here is what he said (paraphrasing):
“if instead it had been Iraq invading the US and you woke up every day to Iraqi tanks going through the streets of your home town what would you do. Even if you believed them when they told you they were fighting international terrorism and trying to bring more democracy to your country? Do you think you would be happy?”
I am not sure how you got to the point where you are Mark. But I would like you to think about that for the moment. What would you do?
4. eric | November 18th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
mitche,
Apparently, your memory is not as good as you think. The United States invaded Iraq after a declaration of war by Congress. Mark is correct, if democracy is allowed to spread throughout the Middle East, such acts of barbarism may cease occurring.
5. Casper | November 18th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
eric,
You might want to check your facts. Congress has never declared war on Iraq.
6. Mark Noonan | November 18th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
LiberalT,
The Iraq war resolution:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
Some quotes:
The war has facts attached to it, LiberalT; you should familiarise yourself with them if you are going to comment about it.
7. Mark Noonan | November 18th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
LiberalT,
Now, on to the subject at hand:
The purpose of America’s war is to change the socio-political dynamic of the Moslem world so that it will no longer be prey to evil men who wish to use terrorism to secure power and wealth for themselves. The best means to bring this about is by midwifing democracy - as it turns out, we are doing this in two nations, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once these tasks are fairly completed, it will become increasingly difficult for tyranical regimes - like that of Saudi Arabia - to continue business as usual.
8. mitche | November 18th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Eric:
I hate to beg your pardon, but you are patently wrong. Congress did not agree to go to invade Iraq. What they did agree to was to abdicate their sworn duty to uphold the constitution by giving the president his sole, personal authority to make war making decisions based upon his own personal bais, as influenced as it was by others.
And now the world is reaping what this disgusting excuse of a man has perpitrated.
He gags us all.
9. liberalT | November 18th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
(1) a declaration of war by congress means something very specific. Look it up - that was an authorization for the use of force. Given - because we were told there were WMDs and our own security and the security of the world was a risk.
There are facts in this world- i suggest you understand the difference between a fact and an ideological declaration.
(2) you didn’t answer the question. If Iraqi tanks were going through your street and even if you believed they were doing it for your own good - what would you do?
10. Kahn | November 18th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Emotions and unfounded statements - thanks mitche and LibT.
Meanwhile, you DO agree that the Saudis are turds - right?
11. mitche | November 18th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
http://www.lyricsfreak.com/d/don+henley/the+garden+of+allah_20042041.html
12. james allegro | November 18th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
Can we drill in ANWAR now. Can we drill off the coast of Florida and California now. Can we build a refinary now. Can we build a nuclear reactor now.
13. Mark Noonan | November 18th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Steve,
That was in reference to Pakistan.
I must, though, be striking a sensitive nerve here…you lefties are going ballistic.
14. Mark Noonan | November 18th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
LiberalT,
Law is law - and per US law, we are in Iraq. You can argue all you want, but it is the law.
As for an Iraqi tank coming down my street - I’d be ok with that, because any Iraqi tank coming down my street here in 2007 would be the representative of an allied, free people who would only be here at the express invitation of my legitimate, elected government.
15. AgentFear | November 18th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
For once, I honestly agree with you Mark. I feel your outrage. I read this to my co-workers on a break yesterday. Most gave a quizzical nod and went back to their business. Disinterested. What can I say, they don’t even know who their congressperson is. Apathetic. Sad.
It’s about time Mark. I think you regurgitated a little bit of the kool-aid and it came out as spittle with your anger.
This picture still burns in my brain:
http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/riyadh_wtf/
Oh, and this tidbit:
“The Bush administration Thursday expressed surprise, and said it was seeking clarification, over remarks by Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah at the Arab League summit that the United States role in Iraq was an “illegal foreign occupation.”
And let’s remember this gem:
“The information is widely believed to center on Saudi Arabia, birthplace of Osama bin Laden and 15 of the 19 hijackers. Saudi Arabia has vehemently denied supporting the hijackers.
Sources tell CBS the redacted section lays out a money trail between Saudi Arabia and supporters of al Qaeda, reports CBS White House Chief Correspondent John Roberts.”
All this…what have you been calling it lately? Conspiracy theories?
Lets also remember the Sunni’s are backed by the Saudi’s, right? The same Sunni insurgents that killed some of our American soldiers right?
So be outraged Mark. Red faced pissed. Most of us on the left have been that way for quite some time.
(about 61/2 years)
16. LiberalNitemare | November 18th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
I find it interesting that the so called “liberals” here are more interested in the opportunity to snark about the “bushitlers illegal war for oil” than the they are in the plight of the young woman.
Its not hard to draw a parallel between the behavior of our liberal posters, with their desire to stay on message, and the Suadi govt’s desire to enforce purity.
In both cases, the facts that do not support the “official” version of the truth are simply ignored, while the preferred truth is shouted at greater volume.
17. Casper | November 18th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
“A court in Saudi Arabia increased the punishment for a gang-rape victim after her lawyer won an appeal of the sentence for the rapists, the lawyer told CNN.”
You are right. This is terrible.
So what has the Bush administration done about this?
18. Eric T | November 18th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
I think of how much I love my wife and how I’d feel if my wife was the women in that story. The woman was a victim, then punished for being a victim. To look and try to find for hope for them, I see how our military intervention in Afghanistan had created a better life for women oppressed by the Taliban.
I’ve read that women in Afghanistan are treated better now under the Nato government than when the Taliban had full control.
With WorldWar1 the alliances between countries had brought millions of deaths to countries that nothing to do with The Archduke getting Assassinated in Yugoslavia. Wars are also very costly. And starting a war you risk alliances forming of equal or greater power But to stop genocide or threats to the American People it could be necessary. Iran, China, and Russia are large powers that could decimate the U.S. and they are allies. The U.S can’t tell every country in the world how to run their countries. The holy wars go back Centuries. And the Muslims still do things their way and the Christian Countries and Israel still have their, traditions, values, and holidays.
George Bush or Bill Clinton are not running for reelection. The American people gotta decide who is going to command the one of the most powerful militaries on the planet.
I just don’t feel good about Hillary taking the job, some of the other candidates had some bright spots here and there. What if Bill and Hillary got a divorce. The French President just went thru that. It could happen.?
19. liberalT | November 18th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
Nightmare - its because it is so incredibly obvious how horrible it is that a woman is being lashed for “meeting with a man she isn’t married to” after she was gang raped that there is simply nothing to comment on. Of course it is horrible and disgusting. But there is nothing to discuss. They have been doing this for many many years.
Mark - i find it unlikely and unpatriotic that you would be happy if Iraqi tanks were driving through your home town. But I have bookmarked this so that we can remember how unpatriotic you are..
20. Kahn | November 18th, 2007 at 11:53 pm
Casper, just what SHOULD we do? You know we’re out of there now. Should we stop using oil? Yah think?
21. Mark Noonan | November 19th, 2007 at 12:47 am
liberalT,
Really? So you are unhappy when foreign air force planes are conducting exercises out of Nellis Air Force base here in Nevada? Fly low and fast just over the hills behind my home…German jets, French jets, British jets…should I start a jihad against them because I’m supposed to be automatically incensed every time a foreigner is armed and in my country?
I’m afraid that I live in the world, and I have to deal in reality at all times.
22. Macker | November 19th, 2007 at 8:58 am
Congress doesn’t have the balls to declare a State of War. Nevertheless, they authorized President Bush to enforce the 17 UN resolutions that Saddam failed to comply with.
Then the Democrats turn around, now that they are in power, and chant “If we knew then what we know now…” blah blah blah yadda yadda yadda…. Congress can just shut the hell up and so should you liberals. Or, do you want to put your ass in the air and point your heads toward Mecca five times a day?
23. eric | November 19th, 2007 at 9:11 am
mitche,
Macker is correct. Congress did not want the responsibility of declaring war. However, the fact is Congress voted to give the President the authority to invade Iraq - by a substantial margin, actually (Senate 77-23, House 296-133). These are the facts. Congress authorized the war.
24. Kahn | November 19th, 2007 at 10:39 am
And they’ve funded it.
25. anarchist | November 19th, 2007 at 11:30 am
“As for an Iraqi tank coming down my street - I’d be ok with that, because any Iraqi tank coming down my street here in 2007 would be the representative of an allied, free people who would only be here at the express invitation of my legitimate, elected government.” - Mark Noonan
We’re doing more than just making a presence in the country. The US military has authority in Iraq, if we tell an Iraqi what to do and he refuses, we may use our ‘legitimized’ coercion and violence to force him to conform. If a muslim army was in the US and claimed the same authority I personally would be out trying to kill a muslim soldier every single day, and if that muslim army was given ‘legitimate’ authority from the US government, I would probably be on the ‘insurgent’ side of the civil war that would develop.
Democracy doesn’t legitimize anything, Hitler while not elected in the US sense, recieved his power through the democratic process. The current Iraqi government is largely a US creation, over 80% of their representatives where backed by the US. The Iraqi government assumes the hegemonic role over the population that want nothing to do with them or voted against them, it forces them to submit to things like religious laws and confiscatory taxation. We just shoot these guys and write it off as another dead ‘terrorist’.
The US has imposed a government on the Iraqis, we have picked a side in a complex conflict that has nothing to do with us and we are the deadly enemies of anyone that disputes Iraqi federal goverrnment autocracy for any reason.
26. Mark Noonan | November 19th, 2007 at 11:45 am
Anarchist,
So, I guess you would also be of the opinion that Japanese, Germans, South Koreans, etc should start taking shots at American troops in their country because they, too, have been granted authority by the local government to use coercive force as necessary?
Do you realise how foolish you look when you say things like that? You are dreaming of fighting in an anti-Bush insurgency - and you have this absurd dream because since 2000 you have fed yourself on hatred and lies about the man.
Sad; very sad.
27. Almiranta | November 19th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Oh, to be a Liberal, a far far left radical, ranting and raving about the imperfections of the world and having someone to blame it all on. What a simple—and, of course, simpleMINDED, way of life.
We are forced, by facts beyond our control, to have a political relationship with a nation which fails, by a long shot, to meet even our most basic standards of civilization or humanity in many of its laws and actions.
In the simple-minded black and white either-or zero-sum static world of the radical Lefty, we either turn on Saudi Arabia and disown it or we are completely supportive of every aspect of its government and religion.
This is why we don’t want Lefties in charge. While they are resolutely relativist in most areas, finding it possible to condone and even support and even PROMOTE the killing of innocent unborn children, for example, or finding it perfectly fine to “interpret” a “living constitution” by inserting unstated meanings into it so they can then discover “emanations” and “penumbras” of those unstated elements, if there is a chance to hurl insults and accusations at a conservative president or position they can be absolutely, obdurately, immovably, inflexibly, intolerant of a position.
So the wild-eyed mitches of the world can work themselves up into a spittle-flying frenzy over the fact that although we deplore many of the internal actions of another country, we have a political alliance with it.
While at the same time, of course, completely ignoring the efforts we are making to introduce into the region an alternative to the theocracy that creates these atrocities.
28. AgentFear | November 19th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
I knew you wouldn’t post my comment Mark.
29. anarchist | November 19th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Mark, if the US government tried to impose it’s will on Japan, Germany, South Korea or any country, they definitely would have a right to defend themselves. The politicians of the US don’t own the people of the world, they have no right to make them to do anything. Just like no other government has the right to make you do anything, only the US government has any right to make you do anything. (I would even argue that even the US gov doesn’t have that right, that people right’s come from god and not the state, the state just takes them away, but that’s just my crazy anarchist philosophy).
My take on the whole thing is that Saddamn definitely deserved to die, but in my personal opinion this doesn’t give the politicians of the US the right to force all of the population to pay for it. If you want something done do it yourself, and if your unable to do it yourself that doesn’t give you the ‘right’ to coerce your fellow citizens into contributing.
But after the fall of the Iraqi government, we stuck around to interject our decisions about who would control who, what sides of a complex conflict was right, what kind of government would be created and we backed all of our decisions with deadly force. We shoot down anyone that disputes us, anyone that doesn’t reconize our legitimacy or that of the government we created. All in the name of, and payed for, by the US citizen, wether those citizens wanted that or not.
Also, I’m not sure how you equate me saying I would fight a foreign invasion and occupation of the US with wanting to fight the current government under Bush. I would hope that most of the country shares my opinion. Are you saying you would just bow down and submit to an invading army if they had like a UN resolution or something?
I actually voted for Bush in 2000, but the biggest spending increase since LBJ and the 2 wars have definitely changed my opinion of the guy.
And as for the thread topic, this is why we shouldn’t be letting politicians give these douche bags our tax dollars.
30. pelirrojo | November 20th, 2007 at 12:24 am
Mark. Ok a left wing view. Saudi Arabia is a theocracy, what do you expect from them? history shows us this is the kind of thing to expect when law is based on a book of religion. every Christian, Muslim, and whatever other theocracy,, was like this.
But I have to ask, why is this case so special to you? why haven’t you ever had a thread of their beheading people for being gay?
And while I’m at it, why exactly would you have good feelings towards any dictatorship?