| Submit your comments on this article |
| Arabia |
| Saudi King pardons rape victim |
| 2007-12-17 |
| Considering how unislamic it is, I suppose it's a good start. Saudi King Abdullah has pardoned a rape victim who had been sentenced to 200 lashes and six months in prison in a case that sparked international attention, a Saudi newspaper reported. Worst case, wouldn't having been raped about 14 times been enough "justice"? If what those two endured counts as justice in the eyes of the truly religious, then that should be enough and the woman shouldn't be caned. If it isn't "justice", then the men should have been stuck in jail as an example for all to behold with no international prodding and the woman then caned. King Abdullah issued the royal pardon on Monday, Al-Jazirah newspaper quoted a Saudi Justice Ministry official as saying. A Saudi court ruled the 19-year-old had an "illegitimate relationship" with a man who was not her husband, and that the rape occurred after she and the man were discovered in a "compromising situation, her clothes on the ground." Horse$hit. They were supposedly found in a parking garage. Then driven to a secluded area and both raped. Uh huh. Probably the testimony of the seven men against the other two. Heck, it had worked so well in the past, why not take advantage of it again? The attacks took place in Qatif in March 2006 when the woman was engaged to be married. And she still is AFAIK. The case has drawn international attention, provoked outrage in the West and cast light on the treatment of women under Saudi Arabia's strict Islamic law. Nah, it was just too hard to ignore. The woman was meeting with a man -- described by the woman's attorney as a former friend from whom she was retrieving a photograph -- when they both were abducted last March. A "former" friend, eh? Seven men were convicted in their abduction and her rape and received sentences ranging from 10 months to five years in jail. How Under Saudi law, women are subject to numerous restrictions, including a strict dress code, a prohibition against driving and a requirement that they get a man's permission to travel or have surgery. Ugh. Great. Throw away half the country. See if anybody cares. |
| Posted by:gorb |
| #8 wow i guess they will raise the price of oil for this one since they had too go aggainst islamic bullshit |
| Posted by: sinse 2007-12-17 16:34 |
| #7 It'd be nice to believe that international pressure and the media spotlight had something to do with this so that the MSM is good for something after all. It would be good to put the spotlight on the religious fanatics every time there is a case like this so they have to explain and justify to the whole wide world the twisted practices of their religion. But I wouldn't want to be the journalist trying to live in that country who held the light on these cockroaches. It might be a health risk. |
| Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2007-12-17 14:07 |
| #6 TW: Given how many of the Saudi royal family can be counted in the ranks of the zealots (about half, I understand -- the other half being "Westernized" decadents), cleaning up the populace would be a bit difficult, regardless of outside influences. Not knowing any of the royals, I can't speak to the zealotry or lack thereof within the Saudi leadership. I can say that it would be silly of them to attack Uncle Sam, their principal protector against Iranian or Iraqi territorial expansion. The Saudi government did not need bin Laden to attack us on 9/11 in order to get Uncle Sam to move out of Saudi Arabia. We would have left if they had asked us to leave. We have left the Philippines, the Panama Canal, the Central Pacific territories - the list goes on and on. My basic point is that in most Muslim countries, the population, not the rulers, are our enemy. There are people who believe that democracy will make everyone our friend. I think that's just wrong. A lot of countries that have become more democratic have also become more hostile to us. Chile. South Korea. The Philippines. Indonesia. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2007-12-17 14:04 |
| #5 True - after a while, all those deaths 'while on a camping trip' would begin to look suspicious. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2007-12-17 13:27 |
| #4 Given how many of the Saudi royal family can be counted in the ranks of the zealots (about half, I understand -- the other half being "Westernized" decadents), cleaning up the populace would be a bit difficult, regardless of outside influences. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-12-17 13:10 |
| #3 MM: If an American court tried to jail a rape victim (never mind that we don't do lashings here) the governor (or USAG) would be under immediate and unremitting pressure to remove any judges involved it the decision. In Saudi Arabia, the pressure is to do the opposite - i.e., not do a pardon. The royals don't generally interfere because they remember what happened to the Shah, who was overthrown by a bunch of angry Muslim literalists on a mission from Khomeini who prided himself on having the only correct interpretation of the Koran. My feeling is that the only way to erase the threat from Saudi Arabia is to cull the ranks of the zealots and the clerics. When the Shah of Iran attempted to do this in Iran via his secret police, the West gave him a hard time, and France gave Khomeini shelter. When the zealots and the clerics attempted to overthrow the Shah, Carter gave them the green light while denying the Shah military supplies to crush his opponents and urging him to leave. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2007-12-17 10:36 |
| #2 If an American court tried to jail a rape victim (never mind that we don't do lashings here) the governor (or USAG) would be under immediate and unremitting pressure to remove any judges involved it the decision. |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2007-12-17 10:03 |
| #1 You are just now doing this, "King"? She should have been pardoned the day of charge. |
| Posted by: newc 2007-12-17 09:53 |