I'm stunned by this. Suthers' trip was covered by the local press and nowhere did he apologize for anything. There is a huge flap in Saudi over this case because some Saudis claim this slimeball wasn't guilty but was the victim of prejudice. The State Department paid for Suthers to go over there and explain the facts.
For example, Suthers explained that the perp did not take the stand to deny the charges. Under the medieval Sharia system, that is taken as almost a confession, so that impressed the Saudis.
The local press has been pretty straightforward in the reporting - saying straight out that the rapist almost certainly would not have been convicted in Saudi because of the four witness rule and the fact that sexual abuse of female servants by male employers is commonplace over there. I think the whole affair has opened some eyes here.
Debbie is sliming a good AG on the basis of something she just made up.
Yup. What's even more distressing is that there are FReepers who are willing to accept this sort of sensationalism without bothering to check the facts of the case, and in so doing act like a bunch of DUmmies.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
I lived in Saudi Arabia for three years and abuse of domestic workers is common. There is an office that is responsible for monitoring conditions and protecting workers but they don't have a lot of power.
When you go to work there your employer takes your passport and you are issued an iqama which has your photo and serves as your identity card and work permit. Women who agree to go work there from third-world countries know full well what kind of thing they are getting into but most sign up and take their chances.
Saudi's are kind of schizo over abuse of women. A Saudi Marine guard at our housing compound was beaten and jailed because he searched a car containing the Thai wife of one of our contractors and without removing her from the car put his hand under the front seat behind her legs to feel around.
He arrived back several weeks later with his head shaved, which is done in prison, quite subdued.
The other point mentioned was about Abdullah's confusion over why the charges couldn't have been dealt with a payoff. The Saudi government reportedly paid $322,000 to defend this guy. In Sharia, it is both allowed and expected that 'blood money' can be paid to resolve claims.
I'm not totally against it and saw it work in Saudi Arabia where some poor shlub would run over a Saudi crossing the highway in the dark. People donate money to 'blood money' funds to pay off victims. Muslims are encouraged to forgive transgressions against them and their families and often do, even murders. They'll stage this stuff. Just before the swordsman swings the sword a family representative will step forward and forgive the murderer. The crowd loves it and it always makes the paper as an example of good behavior.
Americans and Brits were quite favored in the Saudi legal system even when they egregiously violated the law there. Two British nurses convicted of murder were not executed when I was there although it was clear they murdered another nurse, an Australian.
The Saudi's desperately didn't want to execute these women although they have no problem when it comes to Nigerians, Pakistanis or Philipinos. They convinced the Australian woman's family to accept the blood money which reportedly was over two million bucks.
I'm guessing the Saudi government, or maybe even the Brits, donated the money. I don't remember that the Australians brother, who was recognized by the Saudis as the family head, was real happy about it but he did it. At one point he seemed quite firm in his opinion that he would be pleased if the mandated sentence for murder under Sharia would be carried out. I think the anti-death penalty people in Britain and Australia finally wore him down.
Story here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/97099.stm