Where is the outrage?

Remember how we always hear about how progressives/feminists ignore the plight of women in Iraq/Afghanistan/whatever country the neo-Cons wants to invade next?

Well, there is a really bad case in Saudi Arabia right now, where a woman who was raped, has been sentenced to first 90 lashes, and later, on appeal, to 200 lashes and six months in jail, for having been alone with a man she wasn't related to. The man was also raped. There is a short summary of the case here.

Remember the arguments for going into Iraq? Not the ones related to WMD, but the ones used when none were found - the arguments about torture, injustice and repression of women? (ok, and ties to terrorists). All of these arguments could better be used for a war against Saudi Arabia, as shown by this case, yet the US won't even condemn the verdict. When State Department spokesman Sean McCormack was asked about the case, he basically said that the US would do nothing

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack avoided directly criticizing the Saudi judiciary over the case, but said the verdict "causes a fair degree of surprise and astonishment."

"It is within the power of the Saudi government to take a look at the verdict and change it," McCormack said.

I am not arguing that the Western world should wage a war against Saudi Arabia because of this, but I think it is necessary to face the truth about our ally in the "War Against Terror". It's a religious totalitarian state, with a barbaric justice system, where the whims (and prejudices) of the judges rule supreme. It's a fertile recruiting ground for terrorists, which the rules won't crack down upon, for fear of the terrorists start targeting them (need I break down the numbers of the 9/11 hijackers?)

In Denmark, the government is trying to work out a consensus about an approach with the rest of the EU, while a number of parties in parliament (from the socialists to the far-right populists/racists) are calling for Denmark to withdraw the ambassador from Saudi Arabia in protest. Personally, I am all for withdrawing the ambassador, and wouldn't mind some kind of sanctions as well.

According to the first article, the victim has appealed her sentence, and I think it's important that pressure be put upon the Saudi Royalty to pressure the judges, and if that's not enough, to pardon the woman her "crimes". This is something both the US and the EU should get behind.

In the long run, Saudi Arabia should be pressured to join the modern world, and leave their barbaric medieval laws in the past, where they belong.

Edit: Hillary Clinton is speaking up about the case.
Clinton attacks Bush over jailed Saudi rape victim (The Independent)
Candidates slam Saudi rape verdict (CNN)
The CNN article also tells us that Edwards and Biden have spoken up about the case.

Krugman speaks sense (again)

Paul Krugman is a reliable source for sensible commentary on both US politics and economics. His newest op-ed in NY Times is another example of that.

Fearing Fear Itself

Consider, for a moment, the implications of the fact that Rudy Giuliani is taking foreign policy advice from Norman Podhoretz, who wants us to start bombing Iran “as soon as it is logistically possible.”

Mr. Podhoretz, the editor of Commentary and a founding neoconservative, tells us that Iran is the “main center of the Islamofascist ideology against which we have been fighting since 9/11.” The Islamofascists, he tells us, are well on their way toward creating a world “shaped by their will and tailored to their wishes.” Indeed, “Already, some observers are warning that by the end of the 21st century the whole of Europe will be transformed into a place to which they give the name Eurabia.”

Do I have to point out that none of this makes a bit of sense?

For one thing, there isn’t actually any such thing as Islamofascism — it’s not an ideology; it’s a figment of the neocon imagination. The term came into vogue only because it was a way for Iraq hawks to gloss over the awkward transition from pursuing Osama bin Laden, who attacked America, to Saddam Hussein, who didn’t. And Iran had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11 — in fact, the Iranian regime was quite helpful to the United States when it went after Al Qaeda and its Taliban allies in Afghanistan.

Beyond that, the claim that Iran is on the path to global domination is beyond ludicrous. Yes, the Iranian regime is a nasty piece of work in many ways, and it would be a bad thing if that regime acquired nuclear weapons. But let’s have some perspective, please: we’re talking about a country with roughly the G.D.P. of Connecticut, and a government whose military budget is roughly the same as Sweden’s.

Europe doesn't consider Iran a threat - maybe that should make the US stop up and think for a moment? Iran is after all much closer to Europe than to the US, and while Israel would be the closest target, Europe is certainly a much more likely target for Iranian nuclear weapons than the US, if nothing else, then because of geographic reasons (distance). Of course, other Middle Eastern countries are more likely targets for a Iranian attack, given the very real political and religious differences between Iran and a number of its neighbors.

Yes, Iran should be pressured to not get nuclear weapons, but that should be done through political paths, and based on a realistic evaluation of the threat they create, not through threats and ridiculous claims about the dangers Iran process.