Saudi Girl sentenced to 200 Lashes

[aiki14]

After she and a male friend were attacked in their car by 7 men who gang raped both of them, she was convicted of being in a car with a man who was not a member of her immediate family. She got 90 lashes and some prison time but appealed, the appeals court said she used the media to influence them and increased the sentence to 200 lashes.

Why do we deal with these countries? Sure I know, they have the oil, so we can't "offend the Saudi's", but holy cow, we are dealing in the 21st century with 14th century characters who would still be camel herders if we had a sensible energy policy.

I saw the story on Japanese TV but I know the dem candidates have condemned the Saudi court. I couldn't follow in japanese what Bush said but it may have been along the lines of "we can't interfere in internal Saudi affairs". If true, that would be astonishing indeed. Seems we're OK with interfering in the internal affairs of Iraq, but not with Bush's Saudi friends. If we were justified in getting rid of Saddam and his brats (and I think we were), then there are many in the line who need the same treatment. A country who allows the victim of a gang rape to be further victimized by medievel ideology and laws of dubious sanity does not deserve to be treated in the same fashion as civilized entities.
If we are forced by economic exigencies to deal with these people we should at least have the courage to let them know what we think of their actions, and our government should condemn in the strongest possible terms what is clearly anathema to that which we hold true and honorable.

[Albert0373]

This is the same country which helps determine oil output (OPEC the true terrorist organization) for the world. I am glad they are level headed in all their thinking.

Here's the article for anybody who wants to read more:
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_2221631,00.html

[goodwill7148]

Oh gosh... All we could say and pray is ... hope they will change someday ... :(

[TonyM]

Ok, let me start by saying that I most definitely do not agree with their laws and customs and naturally find this story to be disgusting.

Now, with that out of the way let me point out that any country pointing fingers is merely the pot calling the kettle black, including the US

How humane was the multiple tasing and subsequent death of the Polish traveler at a Canadian airport last week? How humane is it to allow convicted child molesters to be set free and given another chance to repeat their offense right here in this country?

There are many human rights atrocities committed in many 2nd and 3rd world countries everyday, but they aren't newsworthy if that country has nothing to offer us by way of trade or strategic location.

The Arab nations would indeed still be camel herders without our thirst for their oil, but they would still be violating human rights and we as a nation would be uninformed and for the most part would not give a damn. Just like we don't know or care about kidnapped 3 year olds in Bangladesh in a still thriving slave trade.

Real Sports did a story on the camel jockeys a while back and questioned the treatment of the poor kidnapped jockeys and ridiculed the wealthy supposedly cultured Sheikhs that run the sport. Yet no journalist was sent to the countries of these kidnapped children to question why the governments continue to allow gangs to kidnap and sell these poor children. Granted that the expose did force changes by some Arab countries in the minimum age requirements, not sure how well these countries may be adhering to the change in the law, nonetheless there have been reports of progress.

Brief description of the camel racing (http://www.camelraces.com/)

Indeed, the correct thing to do would be for all 'civilized' countries to immediately stop all trade with countries that violate human rights...so who gets to decide where that line gets drawn? Sure this case is cut and dry, but what about the death penalty? What about the loss of basic human rights under the guise of a 'war on terror'? Clear as mud being a human rights activist eh?

Fittingly, we can give thanks that we have it pretty good here, in relative terms.

[cramerica1972]

After she and a male friend were attacked in their car by 7 men who gang raped both of them, she was convicted of being in a car with a man who was not a member of her immediate family. She got 90 lashes and some prison time but appealed, the appeals court said she used the media to influence them and increased the sentence to 200 lashes.

Why do we deal with these countries? Sure I know, they have the oil, so we can't "offend the Saudi's", but holy cow, we are dealing in the 21st century with 14th century characters who would still be camel herders if we had a sensible energy policy.

I saw the story on Japanese TV but I know the dem candidates have condemned the Saudi court. I couldn't follow in japanese what Bush said but it may have been along the lines of "we can't interfere in internal Saudi affairs". If true, that would be astonishing indeed. Seems we're OK with interfering in the internal affairs of Iraq, but not with Bush's Saudi friends. If we were justified in getting rid of Saddam and his brats (and I think we were), then there are many in the line who need the same treatment. A country who allows the victim of a gang rape to be further victimized by medievel ideology and laws of dubious sanity does not deserve to be treated in the same fashion as civilized entities.
If we are forced by economic exigencies to deal with these people we should at least have the courage to let them know what we think of their actions, and our government should condemn in the strongest possible terms what is clearly anathema to that which we hold true and honorable.ummm,arent we interfering in iraq's and iran and n korea's"affairs;?

[TonyM]

ummm,arent we interfering in iraq's and iran and n korea's"affairs;?


Umm, can't you read? (that was a rhetorical question btw)

Seems we're OK with interfering in the internal affairs of Iraq, but not with Bush's Saudi friends.

[englishman26]

- Guantanamo Bay.

- Torture in not so secret european-based prisons.

- Hundreds of thousands of dead civilians in Iraq and Afganistan.

- Funding and military provisions of Palistinian repression by Israel.

- God knows what happens in Chinese/Taiwanese/etc factories to produce the goods we buy every day.

Until America cleans up it's own foreign policy it simply isn't in a position to comment or realistically influence human rights abuses by other countries.

[TonyM]

- Guantanamo Bay.

- Torture in not so secret european-based prisons.

- Hundreds of thousands of dead civilians in Iraq and Afganistan.

- Funding and military provisions of Palistinian repression by Israel.

- God knows what happens in Chinese/Taiwanese/etc factories to produce the goods we buy every day.

Until America cleans up it's own foreign policy it simply isn't in a position to comment or realistically influence human rights abuses by other countries.

Careful with that common sense talk, they'll kick us limeys out or perhaps give us a tour of Guantanamo.

[freakscene]

Seems we're OK with interfering in the internal affairs of Iraq, but not with Bush's Saudi friends.

Hi aiki :)

Its me again. Good post.

You could have excluded the above sentence though.

It opens the door for someone like me to ask if you minded Bill Clinton's Saudi friends/connections who......helped Boeing get awarded a fairly large contract (wonder what Clinton connections had any stock ? ;), or the friends/connections who gave Clinton an 18-carat gold, jeweled sheath, ivory-handled sword from the Saudi Prince (trading ivory is illegal for those of you who care about "international law" ya know.) I wont mention the former presidents Saudi connections that helped AT&T get a 4 billion dollar Saudi deal :p, but I will leave you with this:

http://www.internationalspecialreports.com/middleeast/00/saudiarabia/2-1.gif

http://www.internationalspecialreports.com/middleeast/00/saudiarabia/2.html

This special relationship dates to the early 1900s, when King Abdulaziz bin Abdulrahman Al-Saud, the founder of the modern Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, was impressed by President Woodrow Wilson's call for the self-determination of nations. Over time, the relationship between Saudi Arabia and the United States has reflected President Wilson's ideals of independence, justice and peace.

Saudi-U.S. ties grew closer in the 1940s when King Abdulaziz and President Franklin D. Roosevelt began to exchange views on the world situation through diplomatic correspondence.

In 1965, King Faisal bin Abdulaziz met with President Lyndon Johnson.

Saudi-U.S. relations were further strengthened when King Fahd met with President Bill Clinton in Hafr Al-Batin on October 28, 1994. The two leaders discussed a wide range of bilateral, regional and international issues of interest to their nations.

I know I know............. this goes against the grain of the "Bush/Republicans bad" mantra many of you like you spread :wink:

Cheers and Happy Holidays :)

[TonyM]

Hi aiki :)

Its me again. Good post.

You could have excluded the above sentence though.

It opens the door for someone like me to ask if you minded Bill Clinton's Saudi friends/connections who......helped Boeing get awarded a fairly large contract (wonder what Clinton connections had any stock ? ;), or the friends/connections who gave Clinton an 18-carat gold, jeweled sheath, ivory-handled sword from the Saudi Prince (trading ivory is illegal for those of you who care about "international law" ya know.) I wont mention the former presidents Saudi connections that helped AT&T get a 4 billion dollar Saudi deal :p, but I will leave you with this:

http://www.internationalspecialreports.com/middleeast/00/saudiarabia/2-1.gif

http://www.internationalspecialreports.com/middleeast/00/saudiarabia/2.html

This special relationship dates to the early 1900s, when King Abdulaziz bin Abdulrahman Al-Saud, the founder of the modern Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, was impressed by President Woodrow Wilson's call for the self-determination of nations. Over time, the relationship between Saudi Arabia and the United States has reflected President Wilson's ideals of independence, justice and peace.

Saudi-U.S. ties grew closer in the 1940s when King Abdulaziz and President Franklin D. Roosevelt began to exchange views on the world situation through diplomatic correspondence.

In 1965, King Faisal bin Abdulaziz met with President Lyndon Johnson.

Saudi-U.S. relations were further strengthened when King Fahd met with President Bill Clinton in Hafr Al-Batin on October 28, 1994. The two leaders discussed a wide range of bilateral, regional and international issues of interest to their nations.

I know I know............. this goes against the grain of the "Bush/Republicans bad" mantra many of you like you spread :wink:

Cheers and Happy Holidays :)

I think you took a liberty there in assuming that by not mentioning any prior administrations' failures on human rights/foreign policy, that they are by default excluded.

The story quoted occured under the present administration's watch, I don't see anything exculpatory for any other policy maker.

[freakscene]

Careful with that common sense talk, they'll kick us limeys out or perhaps give us a tour of Guantanamo.

Common sense talk? The last sentence is certainly common sense but some of the examples are not.

I kind of laugh when I read about the "repressed Palestinians". I know the ones living inside Israel certainly dont seem "repressed" as they enjoy safety, 5 times the salary as their brethren on the "outside", their religion, and most other benefits any Israeli citizen would get. The Palestinians that I believe Englishman was referring to, are their own worse enemies. All one needs to do is look at Yassar Arafat, and what he did with all that loot that was given to him over the years.....................anyone seen his wife on the Riveria lately? ;) to come to a similar conclusion.

Guantanamo, like FDR's Japanese internment camps, is supported/upheld by SCOTUS, not illegal, and serve a purpose. Many of those who have been released, have been re-arrested or found dead after re-joining the "battle".

Cheers

[freakscene]

I think you took a liberty there in assuming that by not mentioning any prior administrations' failures on human rights/foreign policy, that they are by default excluded.

The story quoted occured under the present administration's watch, I don't see anything exculpatory for any other policy maker.

You are correct Tony. I did assume, but my assumption was based on various posts in this part of the forum. If I was wrong in my assumption, then aiki has my sincere apologies. But its not like these stories havent been reported since....................the invention of reporting.

[netwrangler]

It opens the door for someone like me to ask if you minded Bill Clinton's Saudi friends/connections who......helped Boeing get awarded a fairly large contract (wonder what Clinton connections had any stock ? ;), or the friends/connections who gave Clinton an 18-carat gold, jeweled sheath, ivory-handled sword from the Saudi Prince (trading ivory is illegal for those of you who care about "international law" ya know.)

This special relationship dates to the early 1900s, when King Abdulaziz bin Abdulrahman Al-Saud, the founder of the modern Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, was impressed by President Woodrow Wilson's call for the self-determination of nations. Over time, the relationship between Saudi Arabia and the United States has reflected President Wilson's ideals of independence, justice and peace.

Saudi-U.S. ties grew closer in the 1940s when King Abdulaziz and President Franklin D. Roosevelt began to exchange views on the world situation through diplomatic correspondence.

In 1965, King Faisal bin Abdulaziz met with President Lyndon Johnson.

Saudi-U.S. relations were further strengthened when King Fahd met with President Bill Clinton in Hafr Al-Batin on October 28, 1994. The two leaders discussed a wide range of bilateral, regional and international issues of interest to their nations.

I know I know............. this goes against the grain of the "Bush/Republicans bad" mantra many of you like you spread :wink:
Well, FS, I figure you're halfway there. You can see that both parties are open to valid criticism. This is an important step towards becoming a Moderate.

The next issue we might address is why current criticism is focused on Bush and the Republicans.
The answer is simple, they are the ones in power. Therefore, they are the ones who could effect a change.

When responding to criticism of the current administration, the observation that the prior administration was just as bad is irrelevant and immaterial. It doesn't matter if the observation is true, it just doesn't push the peanut forward.

The question is, "What should we do now?"
I think Bush defenders believe the question is somewhat rhetorical, and the implied answer to the question is, "Change the administration."
I suggest the Moderate's answer to that question is, "Change the policy."

As any ROI analyst knows, sunk costs not part of the analysis — at least they shouldn't be if the analysis is any good. The only things that matter are the costs, risks, and rewards from this point forward.

Side Note: Now that the Dems have a numeric [but not working] majority in Congress, criticism aimed at changing policy needs to be directed at both parties. For a Moderate, that comes quite naturally.

[reef]

Woopidoo, some woman is getting 200 lashes. At least she gets to live. (Im being a smart ass)

If we want to worry so much about human rights then how come we aren't talk about genocide in Africa? The reason? They dont have oil.................

[freakscene]

The next issue we might address is why current criticism is focused on Bush and the Republicans.
The answer is simple, they are the ones in power. Therefore, they are the ones who could effect a change.



hi Net :)

Thats all very well and good. I agree with you. However, as I read "Bush and his Saudi friends" sentence (paraphrasing here), it left me with a sense that I get from many of the Michael Moore types, that only Bush and Republicans benefit or have ties to the Kingdom - when thats simply not even close to being true.

Say, shouldn't those benevolent "leaders" in the United Nations be dealing with things like this anyway? If that organization was worth a drop of spit in a bucket, it seems to me the appropriate place for dealing with things like this. Of course we all know thats not going to happen now don't we? :)

[TonyM]

Common sense talk? The last sentence is certainly common sense but some of the examples are not.

I kind of laugh when I read about the "repressed Palestinians". I know the ones living inside Israel certainly dont seem "repressed" as they enjoy safety, 5 times the salary as their brethren on the "outside", their religion, and most other benefits any Israeli citizen would get. The Palestinians that I believe Englishman was referring to, are their own worse enemies. All one needs to do is look at Yassar Arafat, and what he did with all that loot that was given to him.....................anyone seen his wife on the Riveria lately? ;) to come to a similar conclusion.

Guantanamo, like FDR's Japanese internment camps, are supported/upheld by SCOTUS, not illegal, and serve a purpose. Many of those who have been released, have been re-arrested or found dead after re-joining the "battle".

Cheers

Funny how you didn't quote me until I pointed out your assumption on Aiki's post. Taking things a bit personal are we? Nonetheless;

Bush's policy is upheld by his appointees to the SCOTUS...wow, imagine that, whodathunkit? The Constitution defines what is legal, the Writ of Habeas Corpus being stripped from that Constitution is legal how? Can you provide a reference to the SCOTUS case whereby the Justices upheld this action by Bush? Probably not since the Supreme Court agreed in June of this year to reverse its April 2007 decision and agreed to hear the appeals of Guantanamo detainees who are seeking habeas corpus review of their detentions.

Slainte

[freakscene]

Funny how you didn't quote me until I pointed out your assumption on Aiki's post. Taking things a bit personal are we? Nonetheless;

What ? hardly

I was typing the above post and never saw your response until I finished that one.

good grief

[freakscene]

Bush's policy is upheld by his appointees to the SCOTUS...wow, imagine that, whodathunkit?

Slainte


Well, the last time I checked, Bush didn't approve anyone to the court that upheld FDR's internment camps.

Imagine that.

And SCOTUS said that the detainees can be held indefinitely.

[TonyM]

And SCOTUS said that the detainees can be held indefinitely.

Really? Got a link to that?

In fact the Court left the decision up to the US Court of appeals and refused to hear the detainees' appeal, and as I previously noted they reversed that decision in June and will in fact hear those appeals.

Supporting evidence (http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/06/supreme-court-to-hear-guantanamo-bay.php) of my claim, do you have any for yours?

[TonyM]

What ? hardly

I was typing the above post and never saw your response until I finished that one.

good grief

See, now we're both guilty of making assumptions...and all before noon. Politics tend to get heated, I'll try and back it down to a friendly banter.:wink:

[freakscene]

no offense taken. I'm trying to find the link for you while I watch certain charts refresh each minute......................and getting work done. :)

[concrete]

After she and a male friend were attacked in their car by 7 men who gang raped both of them,

They raped the guy too??

[TonyM]

They raped the guy too??

Tough laws generate even tougher criminals? The hatred level for those with differing views in that part of the world does seem to eclipse ours on a per capita basis. Of course that's just an offhand observation based on not very much public knowledge of the everyday happenings in the mid-east.

[aiki14]

Hi aiki :)

Its me again. Good post.

You could have excluded the above sentence though.

It opens the door for someone like me to ask if you minded Bill Clinton's Saudi friends/connections who......helped Boeing get awarded a fairly large contract (wonder what Clinton connections had any stock ? ;), or the friends/connections who gave Clinton an 18-carat gold, jeweled sheath, ivory-handled sword from the Saudi Prince (trading ivory is illegal for those of you who care about "international law" ya know.) I wont mention the former presidents Saudi connections that helped AT&T get a 4 billion dollar Saudi deal :p, but I will leave you with this:

http://www.internationalspecialreports.com/middleeast/00/saudiarabia/2-1.gif

http://www.internationalspecialreports.com/middleeast/00/saudiarabia/2.html

This special relationship dates to the early 1900s, when King Abdulaziz bin Abdulrahman Al-Saud, the founder of the modern Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, was impressed by President Woodrow Wilson's call for the self-determination of nations. Over time, the relationship between Saudi Arabia and the United States has reflected President Wilson's ideals of independence, justice and peace.

Saudi-U.S. ties grew closer in the 1940s when King Abdulaziz and President Franklin D. Roosevelt began to exchange views on the world situation through diplomatic correspondence.

In 1965, King Faisal bin Abdulaziz met with President Lyndon Johnson.

Saudi-U.S. relations were further strengthened when King Fahd met with President Bill Clinton in Hafr Al-Batin on October 28, 1994. The two leaders discussed a wide range of bilateral, regional and international issues of interest to their nations.

I know I know............. this goes against the grain of the "Bush/Republicans bad" mantra many of you like you spread :wink:

Cheers and Happy Holidays :)

I find the previous administrations nearly equally disturbing. We as Americans should adhere to a certain level of behavior, and condemn those who do not regardless of some economic or poltical tie.
Why "nearly equally"? Because of Mr. Bush's personal family ties with the Kingdom that I believe go beyond those of any previous administration.

If my statements rise to the level of "mantra" then are yours not just the reciprocal, and you merely a reflexive apologist for the party line?

I did indeed criticize the previous administrations, of both parties, but this administration, led by an individual of dubious ability, seems clearly comfortable in replacing liberty for security. Ben Franklin saw the folly in that 200 years ago, and I fear it is folly still.

[aiki14]

They raped the guy too??

Yes, both were raped multiple times, she 14 times. The man was also convicted of being in the car with her and sentenced to lashes and prison time as well.

[concrete]

I understand the Afghan rebels gave the same treatment to the Russians when they captured them. Until the day comes when video clips of things like executions and war are shown on the nightly news we will remain insulated from understanding our national karma (willed action). Hell, we don’t even allow clips of coffins returning home from war. Every night on the local news all over the country we have four clowns on the screen giving a feigned chuckle, over and over again throughout the newscast, to some lame comment one of them makes. What's up with that bulls**t? I don’t think the current state of affairs in this country is that funny. If they have nothing better to say I'd appreciate it if they'd suggest it's a good idea to STOP TAIL GATING!! Americans like their taco sauce mild. As long as the cold AC is blowing, the scotch is flowing, gasoline doesn’t cost 7 bucks a gallon and you can watch NFL on TV, there doesn’t seem to be a problem. I don’t understand most of what I see in this country anymore to the point that every morning when I get up I’m surprised the sun rises.

[Albert0373]

Same sort of matter going on over in the Congo...unbelievable.
Long read but great: http://http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/the-world-continues-to-look-away-dont/2007/11/23/1195753310737.html

It's stories like this that make me view natural disasters as blessings for Earth, as humanity going extinct is really just evil going extinct. Rape here, murder there, torture here, mutilation there, genocide here, mass graves there, dolphin saves humans, humans (Japanese) slaughter dolphins, it's endless. We humans have forfeited our right to exist on this Earth.
-Desert Dude

[madcowdisease]

More intolerance:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21973378/?GT1=10547

[freakscene]

.......Because of Mr. Bush's personal family ties with the Kingdom that I believe go beyond those of any previous administration.

If my statements rise to the level of "mantra" then are yours not just the reciprocal, and you merely a reflexive apologist for the party line?

.... seems clearly comfortable in replacing liberty for security. Ben Franklin saw the folly in that 200 years ago, and I fear it is folly still.

What family ties go beyond, if you do not mind me asking?

I can understand how you might think I am an apologist for the party line and you may be closer to right than wrong. But I have been fairly critical of this administrations governance. They have single handedly set the conservative movement back decades. From the failure to stop the southern invasion of our border, to some of the largest spending in US history, I have many reason to be critical.

But I keep them substantive, not "Bush and big oil", or "Bush ties to the Saudis" that I expect from Michael Moore, but not objective thinkers.

I am also curious as to what liberties have been replaced in your opinion? Frankly speaking, ;) I don't see the Bush gestapo anywhere, nor do I mind if my phone calls are being recorded. They have been for decades now anyway, its just now chic to slam Bush over it. Please see Clintons "echelon" program which recorded US citizens calls without a court order with praise from the NYT. I believe that argument to be a canard. And if you want to discuss increasing executive powers I will point you to researching Bill Clinton's executive order 13083, which consolidated power to the executive branch far greater than anything the current president has done. If you want to talk about suspending the Constitution, its a good place to start.

Cheers :)

[freakscene]

here is an update about the Saudi girl

all apologies if it has already been posted.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=3899920&page=1

[aiki14]

What family ties go beyond, if you do not mind me asking?

I can understand how you might think I am an apologist for the party line and you may be closer to right than wrong. But I have been fairly critical of this administrations governance. They have single handedly set the conservative movement back decades. From the failure to stop the southern invasion of our border, to some of the largest spending in US history, I have many reason to be critical.

But I keep them substantive, not "Bush and big oil", or "Bush ties to the Saudis" that I expect from Michael Moore, but not objective thinkers.

I am also curious as to what liberties have been replaced in your opinion? Frankly speaking, ;) I don't see the Bush gestapo anywhere, nor do I mind if my phone calls are being recorded. They have been for decades now anyway, its just now chic to slam Bush over it. Please see Clintons "echelon" program which recorded US citizens calls without a court order with praise from the NYT. I believe that argument to be a canard. And if you want to discuss increasing executive powers I will point you to researching Bill Clinton's executive order 13083, which consolidated power to the executive branch far greater than anything the current president has done. If you want to talk about suspending the Constitution, its a good place to start.

Cheers :)

I guess I'll start by saying, if you've read the Patriot act and it doesn't bother you, then we just have to agree to disagree, because I think that alone is pretty heavy evidence of my securities for liberties argument and if you're ok with the act we're probably not gonna find common ground. The statement that Executive order 13083 is even in the same league as the Patriot act is gonna require clarification. I am not a states rights guy but I can see if that's your perspective how you could be against 13083.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/eo/bl13083.htm

The Bush Saudi connection is manifold, but a mention of a few particulars that may not be Michael Moore'ish might be of worth. I am not where it's convenient to make a good list, but when I get back to the states if the thread is still current I'll be more detailed.
The oft mentioned, Saudi family flights on or just after 9/11, when even Pres. Clinton (who was out of the country) and Al Gore (also out of the country) were denied permission to fly home, and Mr Bush and former Pres. Bush's connection with the Carlyle Group and Mr. Cheney's Halliburton affiliation are cited by the liberal Hysterics frequently so I won't bore you with details on those.

I would point you towards Michael Unger's book on the subject, "House of Bush, House of Saud" .

I would also like to point out that just because Mr Clinton did something doesn't excuse Mr Bush doing a similar thing. I will say that I was against the things you point out that Mr Clinton was part of and spoke out against them at the time. The Aussie press was all over Echelon and the Clinton administration and I remember reading an article from New Zealand that criticized the NYT for it's support (sorry I can't remember where I saw it). It is to be noted that the NYT's support was of the international effects of the NSA project. It is also not known that the program was ever stopped, as the NSA has never actually admitted the program existed.

It is not a valid argument to defend Mr Bush by pointing out Mr Clinton did a similar thing, especially if when Mr Clinton did those things you were against them.

Abrogating rights of the citizenry by any party is wrong. It is patriotic to be against it at all times, it is disingenuous to be against it only when your ox is gored.

[TonyM]

no offense taken. I'm trying to find the link for you while I watch certain charts refresh each minute......................and getting work done. :)


Any luck with those links yet?;)

[freakscene]

aiki - I was mistaken. The executive order that I should have referred to was 12919. All apologies. Do you know of any abuses of the Patriot act? And thanks for not going in too deep on the whole Saudi's flying out of the country red herring. ;) But we do have common ground in our support for Ron Paul. :)

And I am not defending one by suggesting another did something worse. Just suggesting that the arguments that I have heard thus far have been more along the Michael Moore type of critiques of the administration, that anything else.

Tony - I haven't but I'll check :) to my knowledge SCOTUS, with each ruling, has allowed gitmo to remain as is.

[Albert0373]

There have been many Patriot Act abuses seen, Arab and Muslim immigrants have been beaten in federal detention, confiscated millions of dollars in alleged crime-related assets from U.S. citizens, "Federal prosecutors used the act in June to file a charge of "terrorism using a weapon of mass destruction" against a California man after a pipe bomb exploded in his lap, wounding him as he sat in his car", "A North Carolina county prosecutor charged a man accused of running a methamphetamine lab with breaking a new state law barring the manufacture of chemical weapons. If convicted, Martin Dwayne Miller could get 12 years to life in prison for a crime that usually brings about six months", etc.

According to reports, the Patriot Act has been used to:

* Secretly search the home of Brandon Mayfield, a Muslim attorney whom the government wrongly suspected, accused and detained as a perpetrator of the recent train bombing in Madrid.
* Charge, detain, and prosecute a Muslim student in Idaho, Sami al-Hussayen, for providing "material support" to terrorists because he posted to an Internet website links to objectionable materials, even though such links were available on the websites of a major news outlet and of the government's own expert witness in the case.
* Serve a National Security Letter (NSL) on an Internet Service Provider (ISP) so coercive under the provisions of the NSL statue that a federal court struck down the entire statute - as vastly expanded by the Patriot Act - used to obtain information about e-mail activity and web surfing for intelligence investigations.
* Gag that ISP from disclosing this abuse to the public, and gag the ACLU itself, which represents the ISP, from disclosing this abuse to the public when ACLU became aware of it, and from disclosing important circumstances relating to this abuse and other possible abuses of the gag, even to this very day.
* Investigate and prosecute crimes that are not terrorism offenses, even though it cited terrorism prevention as the reason Congress should enact the law, and cites terrorism prevention as the reason why it cannot be changed.

And I've actually read House of Bush, House of Saud; quite a work of non-fiction, Unger did a great job in putting together the small pieces and connect the dots so we could see the big picture.

[freakscene]

i'll check out the book. its been referenced a few other places i read.

as for the topic at hand:

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=sudan+40+lashes+teacher

Sudan charged a British teacher on Wednesday with insulting Islam and inciting religious hatred by allowing young pupils to name a teddy bear Mohammed.........

we should all thank our lucky stars we were not born in one of these Countries..........

[aiki14]

The Saudi King pardoned the young woman this morning. Maybe there is hope after all.

[cramerica1972]

the patriot act is a gross violation of basic civil and human rights,and should be repealed.Remeber the words of ben franklin who said"those who are willing to give up freedom for safety,deserve NEITHER freedom or safety

[aiki14]

the patriot act is a gross violation of basic civil and human rights,and should be repealed.Remeber the words of ben franklin who said"those who are willing to give up freedom for safety,deserve NEITHER freedom or safety

The theory that even a stopped clock is right twice a day is proven. I completely agree with cramerica on this one (you are NOT gonna hear that very often).
The Patriot act is itself an abrogation of constitutional rights that would have the boys from Philly circa 1776 reaching for the vomit bucket. It's a piece of legislation that is destined for the trash heap of history along with the Volstead act.