Saudi Arabia Decapitates Sri Lankan Maid For The Death Of Child Over An International Outcry

article-2259967-16D8B56F000005DC-120_306x291Despite an international outcry and effort to pay traditional “blood money” in the Saudi legal system, the Kingdom has cut the head off a Sri Lankan maid for allegedly smothering an infant child when the nanny was just 17. The maid was decapitated by a swordsman in Riyadh under the country’s Sharia based legal system.

Rizana Nafeek was sentenced to death in 2007 but Sri Lankan government appealed the death penalty and many international groups decried the ludicrous trial and draconian sentence. While under arrest, the maid signed a confession written in Arabic that she did not understand and later retracted. It did not matter.

Saudi Arabia beheaded as many as 76 people last year.

Source: National Post

278 thoughts on “Saudi Arabia Decapitates Sri Lankan Maid For The Death Of Child Over An International Outcry”

  1. Brookings’ Bruce Riedel urges intensified US support for Saudi despots

    Every now and then, leading mavens of the Foreign Policy Community have an uncharacteristic outburst of candor

    by Glenn Greenwald
    Saturday 19 January 2013


    When it comes to the US “foreign policy community”, few if any people are more representative of it than Bruce Riedel. A 30-year CIA officer and adviser to the last four US presidents, he is now a senior fellow at the wing of the Brookings Institution funded by entertainment mogul Haim Saban (whom the New York Times described as “a tireless cheerleader for Israel” and who described himself this way: “I’m a one-issue guy and my issue is Israel”). In 2012, Riedel contributed to a book on Iran by Brookings “scholars” which argued that the US could launch a war against Iran by covertly provoking its government into responses that could then falsely be depicted by the US to the world “as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression” – exactly what Brookings’ Ken Pollack proposed be done in 2002 to deceitfully justify the attack on Iraq. According to Brookings, “in January 2009, President Barack Obama asked Riedel to chair a review of American policy towards Afghanistan and Pakistan, the results of which the president announced in a speech on March 27, 2009.”

    When they speak publicly, the mavens of the Foreign Policy Community – whose primary function is to justify US militarism and aggression – typically disguise their real beliefs and objectives with specialized obfuscating jargon. But every now and then, they have an outburst of uncharacteristic candor that clarifies their actual worldview. Such is the case with a remarkably clear memorandum to President Obama that Riedel just authored and Brooking published regarding the extremely close US alliance with the regime in Saudi Arabia.

    Riedel begins by noting that “Saudi Arabia is the world’s last absolute monarchy” and “like Louis XIV, King Abdallah has complete authority.” Moreover, “the Saudi royal family has shown no interest in sharing power or in an elected legislature.” The Saudi regime not only imposes total repression on its own people but is also vital, he argues, in maintaining tyranny in multiple neighboring states: “they have helped ensure that revolution has not unseated any Arab monarch” and “the other monarchs of Arabia would inevitably be in jeopardy if revolution comes to Saudi Arabia.” Specifically:

    “The Sunni minority in Bahrain could not last without Saudi money and tanks. Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates are city-states that would be unable to defend themselves against a Saudi revolutionary regime, despite all their money.”

    So given this extreme human suffering and repression imposed by the Saudi monarchy in multiple countries, what should the US – the Leader of the Free World and the self-proclaimed Deliverer of Freedom and Democracy – do? To Riedel, the answer is obvious: work even harder, do even more, to strengthen the Saudi regime as well as the neighboring tyrannies in order to crush the “Arab Awakenings” and ensure that democratic revolution cannot succeed in those nations.

    Riedel stridently argues that the US must remain steadfastly opposed to any democratic revolutions in the region. That’s because Saudi Arabia is “America’s oldest ally in the Middle East, a partnership that dates back to 1945.” Thus, “since American interests are so intimately tied to the House of Saud, the US does not have the choice of distancing the United States from it in an effort to get on the right side of history.”

    Instead, he insists, while Obama should “encourage” the Saudi King to accelerate the modest reforms he has abstractly embraced, the overarching principle driving US actions should be that “the overthrow of the monarchy would represent a severe setback to America’s position in the region and provide a dramatic strategic windfall for Iran.” And the US should not only prop up the Saudi dictatorship, but also must “be ready to shore up the neighboring kingdoms and sheikhdoms.” As a Bahraini correspondent wrote about this Riedel memo: “Brookings is basically telling Obama to make sure we remain ruled by dictatorial regimes.”

    The only thing unclear about Riedel’s memo is why he perceives any urgency to write it. As he notes, US policy long has been and still is exactly what he advocates: to ensure that the people of Saudi Arabia remain tyrannized by this monarchy:

    “The critical defender of the regime would be the National Guard. King Abdallah has spent his life building this Praetorian elite force. The United States has trained and equipped it with tens of billions of dollars’ worth of helicopters and armored vehicles.”

    Just last week, President Obama emphasized how critical his alliance with the House of Saud is by doing something a US president rarely does: hosting not a fellow head of state but a mere minister (Saudi Minister of Interior, Prince Mohammed bin Nayef bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud) in the Oval Office. Afterward, the White House proclaimed that Obama and the Saudi Prince “affirmed the strong partnership between the United States and Saudi Arabia”.

    Indeed, the Obama administration has continuously lavished the Saudi Kingdom with a record amount of arms and other weapons, and has done the same for the Bahraini tyranny. He has done all this while maintaining close-as-ever alliances with the Gulf State despots as they crush their own democratic movements.

    As always, the rationale for this steadfast US support for Arab tyranny is dubious at best. Riedel notes that “while the United States can live without Saudi oil, China, India, Japan and Europe cannot” – but it’s absurd to think that whoever rules Saudi Arabia would refuse to sell its oil on the world market. Riedel also argues that “the CIA war against al-Qaida is heavily dependent on the Kingdom” – that gets closer to the truth, but it just shows how this endless “war” is the author of most of America’s bad acts in the region, and it’s ironic indeed that the only government with valid links to the 9/11 perpetrators has become the closest US ally in the “war on terror”, while governments with no such links – starting with Iran – have become perpetual US enemies.

    Riedel also says that “the Saudis have also been a key player in containing Iran for decades.” But when it comes to repression and tyranny, Iran – as atrocious as its regime is capable of being – is no match for the Saudis. There is zero reason to view Iran as an implacable enemy of the US, and it is certainly no justification for imposing absolute tyranny on millions of people in the Arab world merely because those regimes are similarly hostile to Iran.

    But as I emphasized last week, the point here is not to object to US support for the world’s worst dictators; it is, instead, to urge that this reality be acknowledged. Despite this obvious truth – that the US has no objection whatsoever to tyranny but rather loves and supports it when tyrants are faithful to its interests – hordes of foreign policy “experts” shamelessly pretend that the US and its Nato allies are committed to spreading freedom and democracy and fighting despotism in order to justify every new US and Nato intervention. (…continues)

  2. Jonathan Hughes contributed:
    Why has it taken this long for light to be cast on people that adhere to sharia law?
    You are correct in your observation. I might have one reason as to why.

    It could be that much of this has to do with the availability of informaiton coming out of these Sharia law jurisdictions is more freely available than was in the past. Most of us here in the Western world were not fully aware of the extent of this in the past and the availability of people in these countries to both report these incidents and those horrible people who practice these atrocities did not have the means to announce or advocate it to the rest of the world.

    With the internet, now this is coming into the open often.

    It is a double edged sword. It allows whistleblowers to demand change. But it also empowers evil people to spread their villianry by trying to convince others to promote murder and repression.

    1. Thank you for your positive response. The reason we see what we see is because the character of Christ who does not arrest or war has not been shown to the world. The model of the enemy of Christ has been shown. As a result that model is adopted by humanity. That model is the wide road that leads to destruction.

  3. Why has it taken this long for light to be cast on people that adhere to sharia law? They killed, and burned one of their own because he ripped pages out of the Qur’an. Gays hanged on youtube, 90 kids killed because they thought a hair cut called the Emo hair cut looked demonic. However the USA has to look at themselves with their legal system that is as godless as sharia law with a military equal in godlessness.

  4. As anonymously posted and the others commenters have written, it certainly is high time that other countries’ state departments put out travel warnings of the highest order to disuade their citizens from seeking employment in saudi arabia.

    1. Why has it taken this long for light to be cast on people that adhere to sharia law? They killed, and burned one of their own because he ripped pages out of the Qur’an. Gays hanged on youtube, 90 kids killed because they thought a hair cut called the Emo hair cut looked demonic. However the USA has to look at themselves with their legal system that is as godless as sharia law with a military equal in godliness.

  5. ap,

    You see so many of these stories, you have to wonder is the news so sparse in the parts of the world they hire from that the hires just don’t know? I mean money can be a powerful pull to those in abject poverty, but still, the reputation SA has for mistreating foreign workers has got to make that a hard sell at some point.

  6. I also said you were free to stay as everyone is welcome.

    Take your best shot, sport.

  7. And Gene,

    I’m not taking you up on your offer to NOT post here. You’ve made that suggestion many times today. I find it offensive.

    This has been forwarded as well.

  8. You started it all by yourself Gene. You got to be a guest blogger because many pleaded upon your behalf… need a copy of the groupwise? didnt think so…..

    as somes predictions came true you abuae your position…. i stuck my nose in just like mike and bron stuck theres in today….. i thanked them for there position…. never lashing out at them…… can you say you haven’t ?

    Yes I will defend people that are being abused….. Get over it… You don’t like it…. Don’t abuse them…. Then threaten someone with banishment for do it…. Seems like sbuse of privilege to me….. I am forwarding this to JT as well …. I don’t play games gene…. You threatened me again….. between 3 to 5 times on this thread alone…. You’re right I’m going to defend myself….and others…. That’s what I do… You need to get over that…. You are disruptive when people disagree with you…. This needs to change….really it’s most unbecoming….for a guest blogger….

    Pronunciation: \-fənt also -ˌfant\
    Function: noun
    Etymology: Latin sycophanta slanderer, swindler, from Greek sykophantēs slanderer, from sykon fig + phainein to show — more at fancy
    Date: 1575
    : a servile self-seeking flatterer….

    JT has been copied….

  9. The problem with you here didn’t start with Frances. You were lashing out with the ad hominem well before that. It’s all above in black and white.

    And yes, I do know what a sycophant is, however, I don’t think you do. It’s a noun meaning a person who acts obsequiously towards someone important in order to gain advantage. I didn’t get to be a GB through flattery. I got it because I write good content. Anyone who knows me knows I’m not one for idyll flattery or kissing up.

    You have no role in blog management here, AY. That’s simply a fact. You don’t make the rules. For that matter, neither do we GBs. We write content, we can suggest policy, we are to encourage the rules, we do some light troll wrangling on an ad hoc basis, we have the ability to report in detail egregious offenders for consideration of a warning or banning. The final decisions are not ours. They sure as Hell aren’t yours.

    As I said, were it my decision, you’d have been shown the door for skirting the anonymity policy long ago.

    If you want a blog where you have say in what happens? Go make one for yourself. It’s so easy even you could do it.

    And might I say . . . Awwww! Po’ lil’ ol’ victim you. There is a saying about bears and poking them that comes to mind. Or do you want to try to tell me what to do some more? Because it’s going to be just as ineffective as building a house out of butter in the Mojave. If you don’t like that I have the right to defend myself? Tough. Deal with it. And trying to twist it into “you were just defending that poor woman” isn’t going to fly either, sport. You stuck your nose in where it didn’t belong. A lot of people end up with bloody noses that way.

    But you keep digging that hole.

    The only person attacking you is you by your refusal to recognize the fact that you have no say over me, my rights, or how this blog is run.

    I simply informed you what the consequences of your actions could be should you keep up the ad hominem.

  10. You do have a way of trying to twist the facts to fit your fancy…. Buddy, I’m in… I will not back down when alls I was doing was defending a new poster from your unwarranted attacks. If you’ve a problem with that then don’t do it again. You seem to want to control what’s said but yet reject when someone questions your meanness. You do know that sycophant in the way that I mean it is not flattery in the least. Try looking it up. As you’ve said to others I’m not doing your work for you….

    I’ve done nothing to warrant your abuse other than and I will repeat it for you, except to defend another poster… Period, nada, zilch…. Get a life….. Quit living vicariously…. You profess to be reasonably intelligent….

    So don’t attack new posters and I won’t feel the need to defend them….. Send this on to JT as I have done…. Thanks and I hope this end your attacks on me at least for tonight…..

  11. Again, I’m not threatening you, AY. I’m telling you what I’m to willing to do about your continual attempts to slander, provoke and generally resort to ad hominem against me (or any other poster). It’s not a threat. Fear? Amusement? Joy? Incontinence? Flatulence? I don’t care what your reaction is although it is your reaction that determines the eventual consequence.

    Call me some more names like “sycophant” though. It’s cute. JT would probably be one of the first to tell you I’m not one to curry favor through flattery. We’ve butted heads on several occasions. I’m pretty sure every GB has butted heads with him at one point or another and yet we are all still here. A testament to free speech.

    You keep digging that hole though.

    It looks good on you.

    If you don’t want me or another GB to make the case for showing you the door, you certainly have a funny way of showing it.

  12. You the master of attacks calls another out…. Wow, hypocritical wont you say?

    Now your saying you’ve your eye on me for exactly what, defending another poster…. Now if that’s not funny… I don’t know what is….lol… I said it you are a sycophant…. It fits well… You’re threatening me Gene…. Am I supposed to be fearful…. I’m not…. There is a higher authority here than you… Don’t forget that….

  13. Gene,

    Well … I didn’t want raff to think that was the way we were going to give him up! 😉

  14. Keep digging.

    I wasn’t making a threat. I was making a promise. I don’t care what or how you do with it. I don’t care if you agree with me or not. It has been made abundantly clear that agreement here is not required.

    No status was used in dealing with Frances. She was dealt with by other means. As for private information? I haven’t used any private information gained from editorial access against you. Your IP information is logged as a matter of course and when the issue of you threatening other poster’s anonymity was originally made, it was checked then to see if this claim was so. Your e-mail address is logged too, but you yourself gave me your email address rendering the point moot. Other than IP and email? There is nothing personally discoverable about you logged to WordPress. Everything I know about you comes either what you’ve said publicly here, directly from you out of camera or from others who know you, but as I said, that is irrelevant to the hole you are currently digging.

    To be clear, I’m not threatening you. I’m telling you what I’m doing. You are in blatant violation of the rules for the last two days straight, you’re meddling in the policy and enforcement of said rules when it is none of your business, and I’m putting you on notice that as part of my reporting duty, I’ve got my eye on you. You’ll no more be allowed to make endless ad hominem attacks against me or any other poster than anyone else would be or has been without suffering the consequence. We have very few rules here, but we do take them seriously. Any decision to ban you would not be mine. I am, however, willing to make the case for it should you persist in trying to provoke me or others and meddling in the policy and management of this blog. Whether I decide to make that case or not? Is entirely up to you.

    You’re free to say what you like about substantive matters as is everyone, but I suggest you leave your opinions about others person out of it.

    The choice is yours.

Comments are closed.