American businesswoman imprisoned in Saudi Arabia for going to Starbucks with unrelated male colleague

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I really don't see what's so difficult to understand here.

Different countries have different laws and rules. That shouldn't be too surprising; even western countries can differ from each other a great deal, so why wouldn't the United States and a Middle Eastern nation like Saudi Arabia be very different?

The fact that we may dislike or disagree with a country's current set of laws is, to be blunt, rather meaningless. We don't live there nor do have any say in their government body. We may criticize all we like (such is our right as a "free" country), but every other nation on the planet also has the right to govern themselves as they see fit. The one caveat to that idea is if a country proves itself to be a threat to other nations.

I'm sure many people in Saudi Arabia (and surrounding Middle Eastern countries) disapprove of the American lifestyle and our legal system as well. Does that mean we have an obligation to change it? Of course not! It doesn't matter what they think. The U.S. governs itself -- not Saudi Arabia or any other country.

I honestly think some Americans -- and citizens of other western nations -- need to broaden their mindset a little. Just because we're used to something and find it acceptable, that doesn't mean everyone does; likewise, the reverse may be true too. No one says you have to like it or accept it on a personal level, but that doesn't make it wrong either.

I dunno - locking someone up on frivolous charges and abusing their person is wrong on many levels . Its not just this one case we're talking about here, which is pretty mild in comparison to some of the criminal trials - which have resulted in beheading and dismemberment.

We might be able to compare and relativise morality between today's world and that of say, ancient Rome - but I'm not sure that really flies when we're talking about disparities between two countries in the 21st century, however wide the ideological gulf between them may be... As I say we're talking about a country that doesn't have a very good track record on human rights, and their judicial system isn't exactly known for its transparency and lack of corruption.

I mean, could you seriously argue for example that a person can get a fair trial out there, and that everyone who turns up in court is granted a fair trial? Is it right to jail, kill or mutilate a person when there is significant doubt over their conviction (see Amnesty International) just so they can have someone in the frame and ensure the "perception" of justice. What about snitching on your neighbour that they have contraband in their home (prescription drugs, alcohol, p*rnography) so that they get hassled by the police?

I dunno... I do think we should call things for what they are, and condemn this sort of stuff whenever and wherever it happens. I'm also not too enthused that as a country, we keep doing business with them.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Morality is subjective. I know that pains many people to hear that, but it's true. My morals may not mesh with yours and yours may not coincide with mine. That's fine. Morals are the product of one's culture and the society they live in. We may not always agree with different societies and cultures, but unless we're living there as a member of it, we have no right to attempt to change it.

Whether or not their judicial system is "fair" is irrelevant. That's their system; not ours. We can't dictate to them how they may and may not handle their own affairs. If we can do that to them, then they can do that to us and I seriously doubt very many Americans -- or westerners in general -- would appreciate that.

We can certainly condemn their actions and urge them to alter their methods, but that's about all we can do. If they listen to us, that's great; if they don't, our hands are tied.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I'm also not too enthused that as a country, we keep doing business with them.

Because sound business is always amoral.

Also, because they are the dealer and we are the crack addict. We just gotsta have mo'.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Morality is subjective. I know that pains many people to hear that, but it's true. My morals may not mesh with yours and yours may not coincide with mine. That's fine. Morals are the product of one's culture and the society they live in. We may not always agree with different societies and cultures, but unless we're living there as a member of it, we have no right to attempt to change it.

Whether or not their judicial system is "fair" is irrelevant. That's their system; not ours. We can't dictate to them how they may and may not handle their own affairs. If we can do that to them, then they can do that to us and I seriously doubt very many Americans -- or westerners in general -- would appreciate that.

We can certainly condemn their actions and urge them to alter their methods, but that's about all we can do. If they listen to us, that's great; if they don't, our hands are tied.

Which is actually what I said

Morality isn't subjective when we're talking about treating human beings with a degree of dignity... If that were the case - would you feel comfortable discussing the subjective morality that applies to the respective regimes of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, Josef Stalin, or Saddam Hussein?

[DeadPoolX 9]

Morality is subjective. I know that pains many people to hear that, but it's true. My morals may not mesh with yours and yours may not coincide with mine. That's fine. Morals are the product of one's culture and the society they live in. We may not always agree with different societies and cultures, but unless we're living there as a member of it, we have no right to attempt to change it.

Whether or not their judicial system is "fair" is irrelevant. That's their system; not ours. We can't dictate to them how they may and may not handle their own affairs. If we can do that to them, then they can do that to us and I seriously doubt very many Americans -- or westerners in general -- would appreciate that.

We can certainly condemn their actions and urge them to alter their methods, but that's about all we can do. If they listen to us, that's great; if they don't, our hands are tied.

Which is actually what I said

Morality isn't subjective when we're talking about treating human beings with a degree of dignity... If that were the case - would you feel comfortable discussing the subjective morality that applies to the respective regimes of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, Josef Stalin, or Saddam Hussein?

I know you said that, which is why I said what I did -- I was agreeing with you. Perhaps I didn't make that very clear.

Yes, I would be perfectly fine discussing the morality of dictators and their regimes, both former and current. It's far too easy to simply pass off these men as "crazy" or "evil." There's a reason for everything and getting to the root of that reason is what's important. Once you do that, you can potentially prevent such cases from occurring again.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

It appears we are in violent agreement.

[Caladan 19]

I think the 'it's their country and their laws' argument is histerical. Colour me cynical.

Seriously. Look, there's a difference between "when traveling in another country one should be respectful of their laws" and "if you break those laws and the punishment is immoral and abusive, it's your own fault."

The woman was respectful of their laws; she was wearing the proper clothing and headcovering and probably never would have gone into the Starbucks if the power hadn't gone out in her office. It looks like a lapse in judgment rather than a calculated effort to offend. And she didn't just get arrested: she ended up being strip-searched (in case she was hiding more coffee, or just to humiliate a woman?) and forced to sign a false confession. I cannot believe people are on the side of sexual humiliation and false confession as "just their culture." Think it might have been worse if she wasn't an American?

The law's immoral. No way around it. It has nothing to do with her being American; it's an immoral law even if the only person they're sexually assaulting (that's what an unjustified strip search is, folks) is a Saudi woman.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Morality is subjective. I know that pains many people to hear that, but it's true. My morals may not mesh with yours and yours may not coincide with mine. That's fine. Morals are the product of one's culture and the society they live in. We may not always agree with different societies and cultures, but unless we're living there as a member of it, we have no right to attempt to change it.

Whether or not their judicial system is "fair" is irrelevant. That's their system; not ours. We can't dictate to them how they may and may not handle their own affairs. If we can do that to them, then they can do that to us and I seriously doubt very many Americans -- or westerners in general -- would appreciate that.

We can certainly condemn their actions and urge them to alter their methods, but that's about all we can do. If they listen to us, that's great; if they don't, our hands are tied.

Which is actually what I said

Morality isn't subjective when we're talking about treating human beings with a degree of dignity... If that were the case - would you feel comfortable discussing the subjective morality that applies to the respective regimes of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, Josef Stalin, or Saddam Hussein?

I know you said that, which is why I said what I did -- I was agreeing with you. Perhaps I didn't make that very clear.

Yes, I would be perfectly fine discussing the morality of dictators and their regimes, both former and current. It's far too easy to simply pass off these men as "crazy" or "evil." There's a reason for everything and getting to the root of that reason is what's important. Once you do that, you can potentially prevent such cases from occurring again.

I'm not saying that they personally were crazy or evil (true or not I don't think its really relevant), but the stuff that happened in their names surely was.

I'm not even quibbling about the law that this woman fell afoul of in the first place, but rather the treatment she received from the authorities. There's no reasonable justification for brutalising people.

Edited February 8, 2008 by Number 6

[britty 1]

I had a few colleagues who were Saudis (Ive never been to the country), and they were proud, upstanding, deeply religious gentlemen, with nothing but love for their country. I am sure they are fully aware of the laws in Saudi, and what happens to those who either do break the law, or allegedly break the law, whether considered a religious or general crime. They conducted themselves impeccably whilst in London, meeting female business acquaintances with grace and joining us for dinner at an establishment that served alcohol. They are only too aware that the west conducts itself differently. I am sure the things they saw in London made their toes curl, but they were in a different country with different laws and culture, and they respected this. Yes Saudi has laws that may not seem appealing to other nations, and certainly their methods of punishment will be considered barbaric by others. However, we cannot assume that this makes all the inhabitants unhappy, or that we need some form of law reform their to rescue the Saudis from this evil regime. Hell, I don't agree with quite a lot of the laws in Britain, especially when you see a rapist serve 8 weeks in jail instead of life, or a burglar being able to sue the owner of the house he burgled because he cut himself on glass when entering through a window. We cannot erase centuries of strong culture and customs simply because we dislike it or think its too harsh.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I had a few colleagues who were Saudis (Ive never been to the country), and they were proud, upstanding, deeply religious gentlemen, with nothing but love for their country. I am sure they are fully aware of the laws in Saudi, and what happens to those who either do break the law, or allegedly break the law, whether considered a religious or general crime. They conducted themselves impeccably whilst in London, meeting female business acquaintances with grace and joining us for dinner at an establishment that served alcohol. They are only too aware that the west conducts itself differently. I am sure the things they saw in London made their toes curl, but they were in a different country with different laws and culture, and they respected this. Yes Saudi has laws that may not seem appealing to other nations, and certainly their methods of punishment will be considered barbaric by others. However, we cannot assume that this makes all the inhabitants unhappy, or that we need some form of law reform their to rescue the Saudis from this evil regime. Hell, I don't agree with quite a lot of the laws in Britain, especially when you see a rapist serve 8 weeks in jail instead of life, or a burglar being able to sue the owner of the house he burgled because he cut himself on glass when entering through a window. We cannot erase centuries of strong culture and customs simply because we dislike it or think its too harsh.

Noone's saying we can or should, but I definitely don't think we should be supporting such things. As I say - brutalising a person (with humiliation and violence) is wrong and cannot be justified in any way shape or form.

Why do people insist on hiding behind cultural and moral relativisms rather than condemning this?

[DeadPoolX 9]

I had a few colleagues who were Saudis (Ive never been to the country), and they were proud, upstanding, deeply religious gentlemen, with nothing but love for their country. I am sure they are fully aware of the laws in Saudi, and what happens to those who either do break the law, or allegedly break the law, whether considered a religious or general crime. They conducted themselves impeccably whilst in London, meeting female business acquaintances with grace and joining us for dinner at an establishment that served alcohol. They are only too aware that the west conducts itself differently. I am sure the things they saw in London made their toes curl, but they were in a different country with different laws and culture, and they respected this. Yes Saudi has laws that may not seem appealing to other nations, and certainly their methods of punishment will be considered barbaric by others. However, we cannot assume that this makes all the inhabitants unhappy, or that we need some form of law reform their to rescue the Saudis from this evil regime. Hell, I don't agree with quite a lot of the laws in Britain, especially when you see a rapist serve 8 weeks in jail instead of life, or a burglar being able to sue the owner of the house he burgled because he cut himself on glass when entering through a window. We cannot erase centuries of strong culture and customs simply because we dislike it or think its too harsh.

Noone's saying we can or should, but I definitely don't think we should be supporting such things. As I say - brutalising a person (with humiliation and violence) is wrong and cannot be justified in any way shape or form.

Why do people insist on hiding behind cultural and moral relativisms rather than condemning this?

I just find ironic -- if not somewhat humorous -- that the same people who generally cling to "cultural and moral relativism" are now against it when it suits their purpose. Usually the more "liberal" members of this board like to say things such as "all cultures, societies and religions are equal" whenever other members on here talk about the U.S. forcing it's views on different nations.

Why the sudden change of heart?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I had a few colleagues who were Saudis (Ive never been to the country), and they were proud, upstanding, deeply religious gentlemen, with nothing but love for their country. I am sure they are fully aware of the laws in Saudi, and what happens to those who either do break the law, or allegedly break the law, whether considered a religious or general crime. They conducted themselves impeccably whilst in London, meeting female business acquaintances with grace and joining us for dinner at an establishment that served alcohol. They are only too aware that the west conducts itself differently. I am sure the things they saw in London made their toes curl, but they were in a different country with different laws and culture, and they respected this. Yes Saudi has laws that may not seem appealing to other nations, and certainly their methods of punishment will be considered barbaric by others. However, we cannot assume that this makes all the inhabitants unhappy, or that we need some form of law reform their to rescue the Saudis from this evil regime. Hell, I don't agree with quite a lot of the laws in Britain, especially when you see a rapist serve 8 weeks in jail instead of life, or a burglar being able to sue the owner of the house he burgled because he cut himself on glass when entering through a window. We cannot erase centuries of strong culture and customs simply because we dislike it or think its too harsh.

Noone's saying we can or should, but I definitely don't think we should be supporting such things. As I say - brutalising a person (with humiliation and violence) is wrong and cannot be justified in any way shape or form.

Why do people insist on hiding behind cultural and moral relativisms rather than condemning this?

I just find ironic -- if not somewhat humorous -- that the same people who generally cling to "cultural and moral relativism" are now against it when it suits their purpose. Usually the more "liberal" members of this board like to say things such as "all cultures, societies and religions are equal" whenever other members on here talk about the U.S. forcing it's views on different nations.

Why the sudden change of heart?

I don't cling to cultural and moral relativism - I've always been against brutality and murder etc. I don't believe (any) people should be treated like garbage.

There's also a difference between comparative ideologies (like religions) and the way those are implemented or enshrined in law.

Secret police are just not my bag.

Edited February 8, 2008 by Number 6

[DeadPoolX 9]

I had a few colleagues who were Saudis (Ive never been to the country), and they were proud, upstanding, deeply religious gentlemen, with nothing but love for their country. I am sure they are fully aware of the laws in Saudi, and what happens to those who either do break the law, or allegedly break the law, whether considered a religious or general crime. They conducted themselves impeccably whilst in London, meeting female business acquaintances with grace and joining us for dinner at an establishment that served alcohol. They are only too aware that the west conducts itself differently. I am sure the things they saw in London made their toes curl, but they were in a different country with different laws and culture, and they respected this. Yes Saudi has laws that may not seem appealing to other nations, and certainly their methods of punishment will be considered barbaric by others. However, we cannot assume that this makes all the inhabitants unhappy, or that we need some form of law reform their to rescue the Saudis from this evil regime. Hell, I don't agree with quite a lot of the laws in Britain, especially when you see a rapist serve 8 weeks in jail instead of life, or a burglar being able to sue the owner of the house he burgled because he cut himself on glass when entering through a window. We cannot erase centuries of strong culture and customs simply because we dislike it or think its too harsh.

Noone's saying we can or should, but I definitely don't think we should be supporting such things. As I say - brutalising a person (with humiliation and violence) is wrong and cannot be justified in any way shape or form.

Why do people insist on hiding behind cultural and moral relativisms rather than condemning this?

I just find ironic -- if not somewhat humorous -- that the same people who generally cling to "cultural and moral relativism" are now against it when it suits their purpose. Usually the more "liberal" members of this board like to say things such as "all cultures, societies and religions are equal" whenever other members on here talk about the U.S. forcing it's views on different nations.

Why the sudden change of heart?

I don't cling to cultural and moral relativism - I've always been against brutality and murder etc. I don't believe (any) people should be treated like garbage.

There's also a difference between comparative ideologies (like religions) and the way those are implemented or enshrined in law.

Secret police are just not my bag.

I don't want people to be brutalized or murdered either. I'm not saying they should be either. But what are we going to do about it? At the moment, Saudi Arabia has the U.S. in a very precarious position due to our reliance on them for oil. Our only two options would be...

1. Quit purchasing Saudi oil -- This sounds great and while it would hurt their bank accounts, it'd hurt us more than them. We need their oil to run our entire country; they'd just see a reduction in their overall income. If we plan to do this, we need to have fully functional alternative sources of energy in plance beforehand.

2. Go to war -- Normally, I wouldn't be against this option. I see nothing wrong with going in there and taking the oil fields from the Saudis; they've been extorting us for ages. The problem is that the U.S. military is spread thin between Afghanistan and Iraq right now and every terrorist in the Middle East is closing in on the soldiers there. Attacking Saudi Arabia would just serve to further fuel their hatred of the U.S. and make them even more motivated to kill our troops (and possibly civilians later on too).

So really, it's just a bunch of talk. We can beat our chests and talk a good fight until we're all blue in the face, but at the end of the day, nothing would have changed.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I had a few colleagues who were Saudis (Ive never been to the country), and they were proud, upstanding, deeply religious gentlemen, with nothing but love for their country. I am sure they are fully aware of the laws in Saudi, and what happens to those who either do break the law, or allegedly break the law, whether considered a religious or general crime. They conducted themselves impeccably whilst in London, meeting female business acquaintances with grace and joining us for dinner at an establishment that served alcohol. They are only too aware that the west conducts itself differently. I am sure the things they saw in London made their toes curl, but they were in a different country with different laws and culture, and they respected this. Yes Saudi has laws that may not seem appealing to other nations, and certainly their methods of punishment will be considered barbaric by others. However, we cannot assume that this makes all the inhabitants unhappy, or that we need some form of law reform their to rescue the Saudis from this evil regime. Hell, I don't agree with quite a lot of the laws in Britain, especially when you see a rapist serve 8 weeks in jail instead of life, or a burglar being able to sue the owner of the house he burgled because he cut himself on glass when entering through a window. We cannot erase centuries of strong culture and customs simply because we dislike it or think its too harsh.

Noone's saying we can or should, but I definitely don't think we should be supporting such things. As I say - brutalising a person (with humiliation and violence) is wrong and cannot be justified in any way shape or form.

Why do people insist on hiding behind cultural and moral relativisms rather than condemning this?

I just find ironic -- if not somewhat humorous -- that the same people who generally cling to "cultural and moral relativism" are now against it when it suits their purpose. Usually the more "liberal" members of this board like to say things such as "all cultures, societies and religions are equal" whenever other members on here talk about the U.S. forcing it's views on different nations.

Why the sudden change of heart?

I don't cling to cultural and moral relativism - I've always been against brutality and murder etc. I don't believe (any) people should be treated like garbage.

There's also a difference between comparative ideologies (like religions) and the way those are implemented or enshrined in law.

Secret police are just not my bag.

I don't want people to be brutalized or murdered either. I'm not saying they should be either. But what are we going to do about it? At the moment, Saudi Arabia has the U.S. in a very precarious position due to our reliance on them for oil. Our only two options would be...

1. Quit purchasing Saudi oil -- This sounds great and while it would hurt their bank accounts, it'd hurt us more than them. We need their oil to run our entire country; they'd just see a reduction in their overall income. If we plan to do this, we need to have fully functional alternative sources of energy in plance beforehand.

2. Go to war -- Normally, I wouldn't be against this option. I see nothing wrong with going in there and taking the oil fields from the Saudis; they've been extorting us for ages. The problem is that the U.S. military is spread thin between Afghanistan and Iraq right now and every terrorist in the Middle East is closing in on the soldiers there. Attacking Saudi Arabia would just serve to further fuel their hatred of the U.S. and make them even more motivated to kill our troops (and possibly civilians later on too).

So really, it's just a bunch of talk. We can beat our chests and talk a good fight until we're all blue in the face, but at the end of the day, nothing would have changed.

These O/T forums are all talk. If people thought that the discussions were pointless or irrelevant then surely noone would participate or bother talking about any of these things.

Perhaps everyone should just stop talking about the news because half (well, most actually) of the stuff we hear or read about we can do nothing about?

[kaydee457 13]

I think the 'it's their country and their laws' argument is histerical. Colour me cynical.

Seriously. Look, there's a difference between "when traveling in another country one should be respectful of their laws" and "if you break those laws and the punishment is immoral and abusive, it's your own fault."

Kaydee: That's your western interpretation. They see these things very differently....

The woman was respectful of their laws; she was wearing the proper clothing and headcovering and probably never would have gone into the Starbucks if the power hadn't gone out in her office. It looks like a lapse in judgment rather than a calculated effort to offend.

And she didn't just get arrested: she ended up being strip-searched (in case she was hiding more coffee, or just to humiliate a woman?) and forced to sign a false confession.

I cannot believe people are on the side of sexual humiliation and false confession as "just their culture." Think it might have been worse if she wasn't an American?

Kaydee: Lot's of assumptions on your part here. Nowhere does the article say anything about "headgear". I'm sure she was "processed" the same as any other perpetrator.

If this woman resided in this country for the length of time intimated then it's very doubtful that she was ignorant of the use of the cordoned off booths in the "Family Section", and likely was told by employees that it was out of bounds.

These partitioned booths are in many restaurants and have a specific use; they are for married couples, with/without children, and possibly others in the extended family such as Mom's in laws. I'm not sure about all male groups or all female groups as to acceptability.

I can say that I never saw all males, or all females congregate in those areas.

There's some details missing in this report, and that's how the Mutaween came upon to discover her. I'll bet they were called by an employee of the Starbucks.

The law's immoral. No way around it. It has nothing to do with her being American; it's an immoral law even if the only person they're sexually assaulting (that's what an unjustified strip search is, folks) is a Saudi woman.

Well, that’s your opinion however it's their law, not yours. They've had these laws for perhaps thousands of years, and probably much harsher treatment than this was used in the past. Save your indignation.

If you don't like their laws then don't go there...This American woman had the same option….Frankly, her public indignation may land her in jail again…..