These people are our "allies"

[Saracen]

....

Saracen, you have surmised your argument thus: "we do NOT, IMHO, have the right to dictate to the Saudis how they should rule"
We DO, absolutely, have this right. In fact, this is central to the entire concept of human rights. Human rights apply universally, or they apply nowhere.

Well that, I think, is where we disagree then. A large part of the way our modern world works is that we respect, or should respect, the rights of sovereign states. It's a mantra we hear chanted often enough when people complain that the Bush/Blair war in Iraq is illegal. That illegality is based on the notion that, save in exceptional circumstances, there is no legal justification for military action to interfere in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation state.

And we tamper with that principle at severe risk, for the same reason we break bad laws at our peril. If we decide that we can use military force against another country, say Zimbabwe as an example, because we deplore what's going on there and because, from a pragmatic point of view, we have the military muscle to do so, we set a very dangerous precedent. By "we", incidentally, I'm referring to the West and primarily the US because the UK doesn't have anything like the ability to project military power over distance that it use to have. The Falklands campaign was cut close, and we wouldn't be in Iraq or Afghanistan without the umbrella of the US.

But if we use our moral outrage to justify military force against "'despotic' regimes, it becomes hard to credibly object when others use their moral outrage to justify force, military or terrorist, against us. The inference is that it's ok if it's our morals, which are sufficient justification for force, but theirs aren't so must be inferior.

Can I stress, I'm NOT saying it should never be done, because sometimes things are just to outrageous to let pass. But we do so at our peril, because it does set a precedent.

.....

We DO, absolutely, have this right. In fact, this is central to the entire concept of human rights. Human rights apply universally, or they apply nowhere.

We have the right, indeed the duty, to oppose such perversion. This is the duty that we must accept to ensure universal human rights. If you chose to deny that duty, if you chose to deny the pursuance of universal human rights, then you must accept that your decision places you in a precarious moral position.

We may end up here in a discussion of definitions. There is, in my view, a marked difference between us imposing or even seeking to impose our will on other states, and "opposing" what we see as perversions.

There's also a marked difference between imposing laws of segregation and the kind of human rights abuses that lead to, for instance, imprisonment of political opponents without trial, of "vanishing" such opponents, of torture and gratuitous executions. I maintain that we are entitled to oppose laws such as segregation, but not to dictate to foreign governments.

Personally, I find it hard to accept that women should be required to dress modestly, or to wear burkhas or hijabs. But then, just as I'm settling comfortably into my moral outrage as this oppression of women, we get those women in this country fighting for their right to do exactly those things that I had thought was oppressing them.

As I understand it, the requirement of wearing of those items is a particular interpretation of a particular form of Islam, and that most Muslims would see "modest" dress as a requirement, but not necessarily the burkha or hijab. If I've got that wrong, any passing Muslims may choose to correct me. However, am I justified in my moral objection to that oppression if it's what those women want, or indeed if it is actually a potentially valid interpretation of Islam?

It seems oppressive to me, and I'm inclined to oppose it. But I am most certainly not qualified to judge which particular version of Islam is correct on that point. My sense of moral outrage at that cruel oppression of women's rights might be genuine, but it doesn't mean it's either right or justified. Moral outrage is a dangerous basis for objecting to something, particularly in a culture or religion we don't understand. It's all very well me getting on my high horse about those women's rights, but it's not my culture or religion. Instead, I'm imposing my cultural perspective and judging another by it. Isn't it supremely arrogant of me to do that, to assume that because I believe it and because I'm outraged, I must inevitably be justified?

....

I grew up in South Africa. I saw the impossible made possible through the will of the people. I saw the final, living proof of the Charterist credo that 'The People Shall Govern' bring down an entenched and enriched government that was founded on cruelty and lies. Don't tell me you can't change the way things are, because I've seen people changing the way things are.

But that was a regime brought down from the inside, and from what I know of it, because it was essentially rotten at the core. Outside pressure and protest may have helped, and indeed a lack of outside pressure may have given the regime the succour it needed to soldier on. So yes, opposition is worthwhile. But refusing to have truck with a regime because of their views and actions is very different from dictating to it.

USA vs Alstotter et al.: :As applied in the field of international law that principle [ex post facto] requires proof before conviction that the accused knew or should have known that in matters of international concern he was guilty of participation in a nationally organized system of injustice and persecution shocking to the moral sense of mankind..." (emphasis mine)

You'll have to clarify that one for me. So far as I can see, that simply agrees with what I've said, in so far as it's relevant at all. The Nuremburg trials weren't about outside interference, but about the culpability of individual members of the state for their actions as part of that state. From that same section of the same page ...

Under written constitutions the ex post facto rule condemns statutes which define as criminal, acts committed before the law was passed, but the ex post facto rule cannot apply in the international field as it does under constitutional mandate in the domestic field. Even in the domestic field the prohibition of the rule does not apply to the decisions of common law courts, though the question at issue be novel. International law is not the product of statute for the simple reason that there is as yet no world authority empowered to enact statutes of universal application. International law is the product of multipartite treaties, conventions, judicial decisions and customs which have received international acceptance or acquiescence. It would be sheer absurdity to suggest that the ex post facto rule, as known to constitutional states, could be applied to a treaty, a custom, or a common law decision of an international tribunal, or to the international acquiescence which follows the event. To have attempted to apply the ex post facto principle to judicial decisions of common international law would have been to strangle that law at birth . . . .

The emphasis in bold is mine.

It says it in there. International law is the product of treaty, conventions, etc. So are human rights. There's no law of nature that says what they are. There isn't even a binding international treaty that's universally accepted. If a country, say North Vietnam, declines to sign up to a treaty, be it human rights or nuclear non-proliferation, there's nothing in international law (as far as I'm aware of) that can compel a sovereign nation to sign up to a treaty that it does not want to sign up for. If I'm wrong, please let me know where.

For a classic example of that principle in operation, consider the International Criminal Court and the US reaction to it. Consider the US involvement in UN peacekeeping operations and resolution 1422. And consider the "impunity agreements".

International law is based entirely (or certainly almost entirely) on the principle of willing acquiescence. We can't force countries to sign treaties, or at least, not beyond the usual carrot-and-stick arm-bending that goes with such things.

Universal human rights may be a laudable objective, but at least at present, they're also a myth. If you want to get the Saudi's, for instance, to accept the principle of universal human rights, you have two and as far as I can see, ONLY two ways to do it :-

1) Overthrow the regime.

2) Get them to agree to sign up.

Which brings me back to my stance - we can hold and express our opinions, and we can rant all we like, but we can't impose our will on the Saudis. We can't dictate to them, precisely because they're a sovereign state.

Nor, for the reasons given previously, do we have a particularly good case for imposing our beliefs or moral standards on a different culture. The Crusaders tried that, and it didn't work then either.

[Saracen]

.....

Basically, you are talking about imposing personal beliefs on others.

<Lengthy post removed for brevity>

......

Yes, more or less. I don't entirely agree with everything you said, but it's pretty close to what I was saying ..... right up to the point about the UN.

I wouldn't even disagree that much about the UN if we were talking about what it should be. But it certainly isn't that. Never has been and, to be honest, probably never will be.

It would be nice to have a world policeman that could go round to naughty regimes, slap their backsides and make them stand in the corner with the "dunce" cap on. But for the UN to have that capability would require the UN, as an independent body, to have the military might to enforce it. And therein lies the problem.

The UN is a talking shop. Moreover, it's a talking shop consisting of a bunch of members all of whom are pretending to be arguing about the state of the world, whilst in practice, furiously defending their own vested interests.

For decades, acrobat, the UN was largely a toothless dog because just about all the power lay within the security council. Still does, to all practical effect. And moreover, it lay with the permanent members (US, UK, France, China, Russia/Soviet Union). And, of course, during the days of the cold war, the US would veto just about anything they saw as being in the interests of the Soviets, and the Soviets would veto anything they saw as being in the interests of the US. The Chinese did much the same, that is, do whatever they thought best represented their interests, whic meant abstaining a fair bit of the time. All the powers were about as bad as each other.

If the UN had a useful function at all, it was probably in that during the worst days of the cold war, the security council did at least provide a means for the superpowers to keep a line of communication open. It acted as a kind of pressure valve. As long as they could rant at each other in the security council, they at least weren't starting a shooting war.

But it's a talking shop, acrobat, at least in the security arena which is what we're talking about. Other aspects of UN function (WHO, UNESCO, etc) have more direct benefit, but in terms of international policemen, it's a hopeless failure. The UN has no military power of it's own. When it sends in peacekeepers, they're soldiers in the military of member states operating under UN mandate. But it only gets those troops if the member states agree. And they're there as peacekeepers, not combatants. They're armed, and will fight to defend themselves, but it isn't their mandate to go in and sort out combatants. Even in the Baltic conflagration, they seem to have stood by and tacitly allowed some nasty events rather than precipitate fighting to prevent outrages. World policemen? Not hardly.

Maybe it would be nice if we did have a body that could step in and force those guilty of abuses to stop. But who decides when they're sent in? The security council, of course, and then we're back to the age-old game of everybody representing their own vested self-interest.

Suppose, for instance, that the UN was to consider deploying it's "policemen" troops to certain African states to stop slaughter. Now suppose China had invested billions with that regime to secure raw material rights. Is China going to risk the UN causing that regime to fall, taking those raw material contracts down with it, or is it going to veto such action?

Simplistically, you might say that a UN majority could make the decision and that the superpowers could have their veto removed. But .... do you think the superpowers would agree to their veto being removed? Do you think that they'd risk a coalition of tiny states being able to dictate to the superpowers using the UN? And even if they could, how would the UN enforce it's will against a superpower?

From a pragmatic point of view, the UN can't act as a policeman, even if it's charter didn't specifically and explicitly preclude it interfering in a country's internal affairs except in very specific circumstances (the Chapter VII provisions).

[acrobat]

I wouldn't even disagree that much about the UN if we were talking about what it should be. But it certainly isn't that. Never has been and, to be honest, probably never will be.

I am talking about what it should be though Currently its just political and slow and doesn't really get directly involved most of the time.

they're there as peacekeepers, not combatants. They're armed, and will fight to defend themselves, but it isn't their mandate to go in and sort out combatants.

But defending yourself is all you need. If you tell the Saudis to stop beating its own people because the rest of the world deems it barbaric nowdays, they will comply. And if they don't you can go and arrest them for breaking international human rights laws. And thats where the UN troops come in. They can be there to make arrests and defend themselves.

Even in the Baltic conflagration, they seem to have stood by and tacitly allowed some nasty events

Yes =( and that shouldn't happen.

a coalition of tiny states being able to dictate to the superpowers using the UN? And even if they could, how would the UN enforce it's will against a superpower?

That could happen UN or no UN though really. The UN might be crap, but thats my whole point. It shouldn't be. If it can't do anything positive because of internal corruption, then it should just change.

[MaddAussie]

think the sentment here sums up how i feel about this YTMND - Homophobiowned (NOT FUNNY)

[AD-15]

hello,

I do believe that, like a lot of Arab governments, the Saudi government are cheating the population, are liars, and puppets of nations like America and Israel. I believe that a lot of the laws are a bit over the top. A very major point to religious commitment in Islam is that the person is willing to do it, not because they are being forced to by the state. However, I fully agree with things like the laws which prevent women from being able to 'sit in cars with strangers.' It is purely there for their own protection. The world is full of sick perverted people. What can we do? I also fully agree with the death sentence the rapists got (I haven't read the article, but that's what I assume, as it's standard in many Islamic/Arab nations). Furthermore, as has been said, the woman did break the law, it wasn't a good idea. I think the punishment is OTT, but the idea behind it I agree with 100&#37;. In addition, she tried to influence the media against the judiciary. Not something I like...

EDIT: Can I just point out that Saudi Arabia has some of the lowest crime figures in the world... Surprising considering the hipocrites which are in charge at the moment, and the fact it is still a '3rd world' country.

[shadowmaster]

As far as I am aware the rapists were not given the death penalty which is not in line with the Sharia Law (Islamic Law).

[R3MF]

'tis a trifle grim.