Nagla Wafa, 39, an Egyptian wedding planner and designer, had a simple business dispute with a partner over a cashed check and a joint business venture. The partner says that she cashed a check and reneged on opening a restaurant. It is the type of thing that is standard fare for courts around the world. However, this is Saudi Arabia and the partner was a princess in the Royal family. Wafa was arrested without charge and held for months. She was then belated charged with fraud and sentenced to 500 lashes and five years in prison in a case that has drawn rightful condemnation in Egypt. She is shown here with her two sons.
When the family finally went public, the Saudi government reportedly cut off all contact with Wafa in prison.
The case is an appalling violation of basic due process guarantees and makes a mockery of the Saudi legal system. It is also highly ironic given the continual claims against Saudi royals of not paying their bills abroad (here). This is not the first time that draconian punishment has been meted out in a case involving a Saudi princess.
Source: LA Times
Jill,
You have constantly accused some of us here as being less than the progressives we are. Your definition of what a progressive should be is just that. It is your definition. What scares me is your accusations that we are trying to put you down. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Wootsy,
I can’t agree with you that our population isn’t dropping the ball here. If we were not compliant, fascism would not have had the chance it has had. Occupy is a great thing and I fully support it. You seem to think I am talking about violent revolution when I have never called for such a thing and many, many times said it makes no sense. We need soul force, the opposite of violence.
But I have witnessed the same as JT, people clapping while Obama’s lackeys talk of murder or while he himself gives a speech about it. I have witnessed people standing and delivering ovations for Bush. This should not be. If you are comfortable with this compliance, there is nothing I can say to change your mind. I find this behavior scary and it is unworthy of a free people.
I think you guys have been talking to people who agree with you most of the time. You have been able to have your 2 mins. of hate against the right wing and you’ve left it at that. You have not had to face criticism from the left. It is time to engage us honestly instead of trying to put us down.
idealist707
1, August 28, 2012 at 3:59 pm
There are a 1000 reasons to vote AGAINST Romney.
And only a few to vote against Obama.
There is no other POLITICAL choice.
——————————————–
I was very surprised when I learned that in the game of politics, there are those who are preparing thier players not just years, but GENERATIONS ahead of the curve…
Jill
1, August 28, 2012 at 11:30 am
Wootsy,
You’re right and wrong. Things are changing all the time. We can try to make the change be of value to the world. If we don’t try, others will make the change in the way they see fit. And so far, their way is the way of mass destruction. Here’s JT’s interview. Please check it out.
http://shannynmoore.wordpress.com/2012/08/20/john-cusack-jonathan-turley-on-obamas-constitution/
——————————————-
Interesting interview.
A big problem since those in power, even without regard to party, have been run amok regarding law and civil rights over the past 10 years or so. You can cry your soul song all you like, most of the people I know DO vote their conscience….they DO speak out against abuse….the ball dropping has not been occurring in the general populace. Agencies have turned on the citizen rather than do their jobs to protect them and uphold the law. The dynamic is already in play. The populace is become witness….the ones who need to clean up their acts are the ones in power. Unless you are screaming for some manner of revolt and revolution….which is absolutely destruction …then what you are crying out for is already happening….it is called the Occupy Movement…it is a PEACEFUL movement of protest, witness and there is no disregard. What you are screaming for is already happening on the street. The next level up is dropping the ball (or maybe they are not really on the same ‘team’…).
When the P’sTB get their braincells back after the big rape maybe they will come to their senses. We are in the burning house and the change is future already knocking on the door. Democracy takes more balls than Fascism, or any other ism for that matter…What are YOU going to do about that, Jill?
[it’s Woosty] 😉
Here’s some info on cults, including political cults. Note the discussion on information management: “Deceptive and indirect techniques of persuasion and control limit individuals’ freedom by diminishing or restricting their alternatives, causing them to incorrectly evaluate the requirements and consequences of alternatives, or inducing them to perceive fewer alternatives than in fact exist.
Cult (totalist type): a group or movement exhibiting a great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea, or thing and employing unethically manipulative (i.e., deceptive and indirect) techniques of persuasion and control designed to advance the goals of the group’s leaders, to the actual or possible detriment of members, their families, or the community. Unethically manipulative techniques include isolation from former friends and family, debilitation, use of special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience, powerful group pressures, information management, suspension of individuality or critical judgment, promotion of total dependency on the group and fear of leaving it, etc.”
idealist,
One thing to know about cults including political cults is that one thing they excel at is limiting choices, even thinking that there may be other choices. I feel this is the case. Obama is a cult brand. Part of being a cult brand and a cult of personality is limiting the choices of people. We have been voting one legacy party in and out for years now. Things have not gotten better, they have become worse. We can stand still and do this again or we can allow ourselves to see there are other choices, both in voting but more importantly, in how we act as citizens.
We have more power than voting, we can take that power. We can also vote for a third party, based on principle. That is just as much a political choice as voting for a legacy party.
The reasons not to vote for Obama are important. Saying that the destruction of one’s Constitution and the rule of law doesn’t matter that much, that it’s only a “disagreement” is like a Catholic saying; “we’ll sure the pope allowed the abuse of many children and protected the powerful while allowing helpless children to be harmed, but there might be a worse pope. I can’t hold the pope accountable for the abuse of children! I can’t even think that I shouldn’t want him to be pope! There’s no one else who can be a pope except another child abuser.”
Indefinite detention, the killing of people with no lawful due process, torture, another sneak bailout of the financial industry under “help for homeowners”, the gutting of the rule of law in both national and international fields. These were things Obama voters were willing to impeach Bush for. Now they’re just “disagreements”? When did undermining the very core of one’s society become a “disagreement”.
To my mind, this is exactly why JT is saying we must vote on principle.
There are a 1000 reasons to vote AGAINST Romney.
And only a few to vote against Obama.
There is no other POLITICAL choice.
How JT can come out against O. surprises me. But that is his jog, his metier, his bread and butter. And perhaps his desire to inspire others. We are here on those points.
But we need a POLITICAL choice, not a principled one.
That last sentence was crappy, but you understand my main point. I’m a dem from FDR’s time. He saved my family and my life.
SwM,
I would sooner kill myself as to vote for Romney.
Are we clear on that.
You don’t have to convince me. If it was not clear, and it was long ago, his choice of Ryan makes it crystal clear.
I prefer a slow death, although the revolt against Romney might have been better in the long run, to strangling in Obama’s hands.
My personal uninformed opinions, FWTAW.
Jill, you may be ????. SA is NOT worried, but is the money really helping the economy? Did they threaten Obama with layoffs? Who knows.
—————————————-
The pressure starts in Joe the beer drinker (me too) wallet, and grows as it goes up, through the twists and turns of the pressure groups. I guess MikeS has still my vote on who runs this nation.
“War in Iraq? You got it!”
We are not going to reform America by voting on principles now. JT must be dreaming, if I understand his words correctly. If we voted on principle for the last 50 years for Presidents, we would be wasting our votes.
If you want to fight on principles, begin with your neighbor and work up. For that matter, start in your own family. Try changing your relatives and see how that goes.
SwM,
Doing nothing does nothing. Right. But you’re smarter than me, so you give us a suggestion. Do you think Obama will follow it?
—————–
And for the Obama lovers, read the article in the NYTimes on Obama the campaigner. I think he must be a cyberperson. So good are not humans doing that which he does.
Fire when ready, what was your name?????
PS The NYTimes won’t admit that the Republicans voided the first day of the convention to build up attention, using the hurricane as PR, and as an excuse to cut out dead meat. Risk for air going out of the convent feared the Repugs.
NYTimes 2PM ET video was miserably kiss ass, made directly for Romney supporters. Nauseating.
That was from your ex-pat in Stockholm.
I’m still waiting for the changes he promised us.
idealist707, Well, since we really only have a two party system, if one does not vote for Obama and allows Romney and the republican party with their most wretched of platforms to win is it not a tacit approval of them at least to some extent? One would think that the republican attempts to portray Obama in such a racist light might be disturbing to even the most pure especially since the civil liberties crowd will gain nothing with Romney and probably lose even more.
The last time I got involved I got trashed. Oh well, once again.
SwM,
If you think I meant the woman presidential candidate when mentioned one being a “good” choice t show that women can make mistakes too. Nope, did not even know there was one. Pure ignorance. But, I did mean that simply that neither black nor woman is the solution.
And oddly Jill cites JT as here:
JT…..”Now, belief in human rights law and civil liberties leads one to the uncomfortable conclusion that President Obama has violated his oath to uphold the Constitution. But that’s not the primary question for voters. It is less about him than it is them. They have an obligation to cast their vote in a principled fashion. It is, in my opinion, no excuse to vote for someone who has violated core constitutional rights and civil liberties simply because you believe the other side is no better. You cannot pretend that your vote does not constitute at least a tacit approval of the policies of the candidate.”
That seems to me to mean that he is against Obama on the principle of supporting the Constitution.
Again:
“….no excuse to vote for someone who has violated core constitutional rights and civil liberties simply because you believe the other side is no better.” etc. He names Obama so it is he is saying that one for reasons of principle can not vote for him.
You are supporting Obama. Fine, as I am too. Have contributed to both him, Grayson, and Raul ???, dem lib caucus chair.
Is there an issue between us?
And am curious what you make of JT’s words.
Jill,
I do allow you to voice your opinion, but you have had a problem with anyone who has the opinion that a choice is necessary. Your vote or non-vote of conscience is no less a vote of conscience than mine is.
rafflaw,
You call it a protest vote, I call it a vote of my conscience. There’s a real difference. I’m not preaching to you, I’m telling you exactly what I think. We don’t agree. Just as you have stated your position, I am stating mine. If you are allowed to do so, you must allow me to do so as well.
You will see what happens to your desired goals very soon, just as you could see that right now if you so chose.
Jill,
Once again, I can read and did read the discussion between Prof. Turley and John Cusack. I do not need you to preach to me about human rights and civil liberties. Go ahead and withhold your vote and see how that improves your desired goals. I do not agree that voting for any candidate is a justification for all his or her policies. No candidate is perfect and if you are looking for one that agrees with everything you believe in, good luck on finding him or her. A protest vote will do nothing to achieve your goals. It will most likely have the opposite effect. I tried that route with John Anderson years ago and the result was that Reagan was elected anyways and he gutted unions and started the fall of the middle class.
rafflaw,
Here is what JT said: “Turley: Well, first of all, there’s a great desire of many people to relieve themselves of the obligation to vote on principle.
It’s a classic rationalization that liberals have been known to use recently, but not just liberals. The Republican and Democratic parties have accomplished an amazing feat with the red state/blue state paradigm. They’ve convinced everyone that regardless of how bad they are, the other guy is worse. So even with 11 percent of the public supporting Congress most incumbents will be returned to Congress. They have so structured and defined the question that people no longer look at the actual principles and instead vote on this false dichotomy.
Now, belief in human rights law and civil liberties leads one to the uncomfortable conclusion that President Obama has violated his oath to uphold the Constitution. But that’s not the primary question for voters. It is less about him than it is them. They have an obligation to cast their vote in a principled fashion. It is, in my opinion, no excuse to vote for someone who has violated core constitutional rights and civil liberties simply because you believe the other side is no better. You cannot pretend that your vote does not constitute at least a tacit approval of the policies of the candidate.”
rafflaw,
Obama has sold out the poor and middle class, not once, but time and again. (See naked capitalism for numerous explanations in detail about that.) Obama is not pro-woman. If he were he would not have forbidden the most poor and sick women from even buying health insurance to cover abortion.
Obama is for killing American citizens and detaining people without trial. I know you do not hold these positions. It is not a protest vote to refuse to vote for someone who holds these positions. It is just as JT describes in the interview, by voting for Obama you are assenting to these policies. If you assent, then vote for him. If you do not assent, then do not vote for him. Of course this would hold true for Romney as well.
I do not assent and neither man will get my vote.
idealist,
One person wrote: “we are watching freedom die and asked to vote who will be the undertaker”.
I went to a 2008 discussion about Hillary and Obama. Many women wanted a woman’s picture hanging in the hall of presidents and many people– women, men, black and white wanted a picture of a black man. I was rather stunned by this because I consider it racist and sexist to think that just having any generic black man or woman’s portrait (of any color) hanging in the wall of presidents is a great thing. Individual people do matter and it is bizarre to think that only one black man or one woman of any color is capable of doing the job!
(Cynthia McKinney was running then. We could have made a much better choice and got both a female and black portrait on the wall!)
So back to those undertakers. Instead of watching freedom die and voting for the undertaker, why don’t we do something revolutionary like using everything we’ve got inside us to help freedom live, to create a just, peaceful world.
I doubt S.A. is all that anxious about Iran. Glenn Greenwald showed a map of all our bases surrounding Iran. There’s a lot of them. More likely, these arms sales is a way to keep the US economy from crashing before the election. Of course, it’s very profitable for our elites as well. Iran just called for world wide nuclear disarmament. I say, let’s go with that.
idealist, Of course, it is so easy to identify the problem without identifying a workable solution. The Green Party candidate, Jill Stein, is polling at 1%. I also don’t identify with the far left’s strategy… that is to stay home. Maybe if the elite on the far left was being faced with losing their voting rights as many poor minorities are, they might think a little differently about this.
Jill,
I did not state that Prof. Turley and Cusack were only talking about Congress. What other realistic choices are there besides Obama and Romney? Protest votes will not solve the civil liberties problems. Do you honestly think Romney will protect our civil liberties or improve them? What about the future of women’s rights under a Romney/Ryan adminstration? It would be a disaster for the middle class and for the poor and especially for women’s rights for Romney to win and for the Right to take over the Senate. I am not talking about a party affiliation. I am talking about which group of candidates will do the best for me, for the rest of the middle class and the poor and for women. The best does not mean perfect. We can regain our soul force and still vote for the best candidate for the 99%.