how did we graduate to genocide?

You say it like the US's hands are clean....

and if you think so, you need to check this out:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2982640.ece

US says it has right to kidnap British citizens
December 2, 2007

AMERICA has told Britain that it can “kidnap” British citizens if they are wanted for crimes in the United States.

A senior lawyer for the American government has told the Court of Appeal in London that kidnapping foreign citizens is permissible under American law because the US Supreme Court has sanctioned it.

The admission will alarm the British business community after the case of the so-called NatWest Three, bankers who were extradited to America on fraud charges. More than a dozen other British executives, including senior managers at British Airways and BAE Systems, are under investigation by the US authorities and could face criminal charges in America.

Until now it was commonly assumed that US law permitted kidnapping only in the “extraordinary rendition” of terrorist suspects.

The American government has for the first time made it clear in a British court that the law applies to anyone, British or otherwise, suspected of a crime by Washington.

Legal experts confirmed this weekend that America viewed extradition as just one way of getting foreign suspects back to face trial. Rendition, or kidnapping, dates back to 19th-century bounty hunting and Washington believes it is still legitimate.

The US government’s view emerged during a hearing involving Stanley Tollman, a former director of Chelsea football club and a friend of Baroness Thatcher, and his wife Beatrice.

The Tollmans, who control the Red Carnation hotel group and are resident in London, are wanted in America for bank fraud and tax evasion. They have been fighting extradition through the British courts.

During a hearing last month Lord Justice Moses, one of the Court of Appeal judges, asked Alun Jones QC, representing the US government, about its treatment of Gavin, Tollman’s nephew. Gavin Tollman was the subject of an attempted abduction during a visit to Canada in 2005.

Jones replied that it was acceptable under American law to kidnap people if they were wanted for offences in America. “The United States does have a view about procuring people to its own shores which is not shared,” he said.

Well, if you're going to adopt an "it's their house" stance, how far are you going to take that? Why is rape ok, but genocide isn't?

Where did I say the US was innocent?

Oh, that's right....I didn't.

How many times do I have to say it?

SHE WAS NOT BEING PUNISHED FOR THE RAPE

read:

According to Arab News, the court said the woman's punishment was increased because of "her attempt to aggravate and influence the judiciary through the media."

She had initially been sentenced to 90 lashes after being convicting her of violating Saudi's rigid laws on segregation of the sexes.

Under Saudi Arabia's interpretation of Islamic Sharia law, women are not allowed in public in the company of men other than their male relatives.


Does it say anywhere in there about her being punished for being raped?

She was with someone that she HAD NO BUSINESS BEING WITH.

If she WAS NEVER RAPED....under their law she was STILL GUILTY of the crime, right?

Right!

She wasn't punished for the rape, but her rapists were given a slap on the wrist, while she was given a totally ostentatious sentence. Supporting that means you agree that rape is ok, and she deserved it.

See...now you just trying to put words in my mouth....

Bottom line...

If you are doing something you know you have no business doing, when you are cognizant of what the rules are, then somewhere along the line, you have to realize that there are consequences and repercussions of your actions.

and you still didn't read did you:

Her initial punishment:
She had initially been sentenced to 90 lashes after being convicting her of violating Saudi's rigid laws on segregation of the sexes.

THIER initial punishment

The initial sentences for the men convicted of the gang rape ranged from 10 months to five years in prison.


Her NEW sentence (because she wanted to take it to the media)
A Saudi court sentenced a woman who had been gang raped to six months in jail and 200 lashes — more than doubling her initial penalty for being in the car of a man who was not a relative, a newspaper reported Thursday.


THIER new sentence
Their new sentences range from two to nine years, the paper said.

and if thier prisons are like thier laws....it won't be a walk in the park like American jails.

She took it to the media because she wanted justice for her rapists. 10 months is NOT justice.

not justice in YOUR eyes....you are still treating it as if they are here.

To a point,I believe that they are looking at it as...in the process of committing a crime an unfortunate and tragic circumstance happened to her, thus she really doesn't have that much of a case.

Again...that is thier country and that 10 months in jail may be harsher time served that 10 months here in American jail....

That's almost like saying...ok...you are breaking into a house...in the process of doing so, KNOWING that this is against the law, you get caught by the owner, shot, paralyzed and severely beaten and now you want to have him arrested and jailed for commiting a wrong while in the process of your committing a wrong.

He gets a lighter sentence and you, being pissed off that he walks (literally and figuratively) and you have to spend the rest of your life in a wheelchair, want to take that to the media...?




Here is the question:

What was so important about that picture that she risked the horrible things that she wound up having to endure that she DIDN'T take anyone with her?

Let's play Devil's Advocate.....

Let's say that she took her brother, uncle, father...hell, her HUSBAND...to meet this guy....and due to the fact the we are talking overwhelming numbers, STILL attacked by these 7 men....

Do you STILL think her government would be punishing her?

NO....because at that point the initial crime that she was punished for is NOT a CRIME...she was with a related male in the company of a non related male...now all you have to punish is THE RAPE and THE RAPISTS.

What difference does that make? The whole reason this debate exists (well, maybe not the WHOLE reason) is that 10 months for a crime like gang rape is insulting. It doesn't matter that those 10 months might be more difficult than 10 months in our jail system. After all, she's still getting sentenced to 6 months in THEIR jail.

I'll just come out and say it. The "women can't be alone in the company of non-relative men" law is stupid. Yes, it's their culture, but that doesn't mean their selection of laws is moral simply because it's culture. Lawful =/= moral. There's nothing at all that warrants support for this law and, especially, the repercussions for breaking it. I don't care if it is "their house".

Like this would have been a walk in the park comparatively. Jesus, NINETY lashes, can you imagine? I can't even wrap my head around 200...

Bottom line...it's THIER rule...not ours.

heck....what about how the US treats women on the wrong side of sexual assault...no, we may not throw them in jail or beat them...but some are ostracized for the simple fact that they were unwilling victims.

For example:

Desiree Washington and Katelyn Faber,are 2 names i can think of off the top of my head....and you don't have to be 'famous' to be an ostracized rape victim....

ok...and how could she have avoided getting 90 lashes?

You're right. They have a stupid law. And the repercussions of breaking that stupid law, especially to the extent that the girl in this case is, is immoral.

Let's say there was a law here that said "Men can't wear blue on Tuesdays." Now let's say that you decided to wear blue tomorrow, and have the unfortunate luck to be mugged by lots of big dudes with knives. The muggers rip you to pieces. You barely live; you're embarrassed that you couldn't defend yourself; your sister tries to kill you because you're a disgrace to the family.

You're sentenced to 6 months in jail and 200 lashes; the muggers are sentenced to two years in jail.

By your logic, it's all your fault because you wore blue. If you hadn't been wearing blue, the muggers wouldn't have mugged you. So the penalty is ok. Right?

DS, I get your argument. I really do. She broke the law, there's no contesting that. But snidely asking how a young woman who has already endured the unimaginable rape and violence that she already has could have "avoided getting 90 lashes" is ridiculous. The punishment is outrageous and you know it. We're allowed to be outraged. I'm outraged any time I hear of injustice against women (or anyone) like this in any country, including ours. Is American society always fair? Absolutely not. But we don't immobilize and LASH people 90 to 200 times, either. It's barbaric there, here, now, 2000 years ago, I don't care, it's barbaric. NO justification.


ETA: And only because it's happened so often it's obviously not just a typo, it's THEIR

You want outrage?

Ok...let's try Glenarlow Wilson

Another one trying to put words in my mouth...again the RAPE was an unfortunate by product.

Still the question REMAINS...WHAT was she doing out unescorted for a picture?

How incriminating was this picture that she risked getting punished?

To me, it's common sense..something had to be going on that caused her to risk life and limb that she didn't want anyone knowing about.

And a lot of you are acting like well, she was raped, isn't that punishment enough?

YES, IT IS.

But again, there are other courses of action she could have taken that may have prevented that and like I said from my last example, EVEN IF SHE DID and was still raped, then the crime she committed would be OFF THE TABLE, WHICH is what she is being punished for!

P.S. Nittanyalum, I will tell you the same thing that I have told others...I refuse to go back and do a spell check for each and every little post I type just to please yoiu all, if you can understand what I am conveying, that is all you will ever need.