It doesn't hurt to remember that some of the
biggest Yankee Trader fortunes were made running drugs that we now harass
Columbian farmers for growing.
REH
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 12:35
PM
Subject: RE: [Futurework] Inhuman
rights
Sampson seems to have missed the fundamental point: that every
country has its rules of conduct for its residents. For example, in the US,
residents are not allowed to fornicate in public, and they are not allowed to
distribute alcohol privately.
In
Saudi Arabia, the possession and consumption of alcohol is illegal, somewhat
like 'drugs' are in the US. When foreigners go to Saudi Arabia, they are
routinely told by their employers, Saudi customs and immigration, etc, that
alcohol is illegal and possessing and distributing it is a crime. Sampson
evidently decided to disregard the rule, and was caught. All too many
Westerners in taking up employment in foreign and especially in 3rd world
countries approach local rules with contempt and a belief that they are
somehow above the rules. I imagine Sampson's attitude, so vividly
suggested in your account, failed to evoke sympathy among Saudi officials and
police and prosecutors. It would certainly fail to evoke sympathy from
me. I have seen too many of these yahoos show up with their attitudes of being
superior to the 'natives'.
Westerners are paid a LOT of money to work in Saudi Arabia. They know
the rules. One would think that instead of complaining and breaking the rules
they would abide by them. Or did they think they could have their cake and eat
it too? Everybody else has to obey the rules. Why not Sampson and
his buddies? Are Canadians -- or this Canadian -- exempt? If he
was so needy of his alcohol, he should have stayed home where he could drink
himself blotto to his heart's content.
Lawry
Last night I watched Peter Mansbridge of the CBC interview William
Sampson, a Canadian, who had been held in a Saudi prison for two and a half
years for a crime he did not commit. He was finally released in mid-August.
Mr. Sampson alleged that he had been severely beaten and tortured. Judging
by the difficulty and obvious pain he experienced in recalling it all, what
he said was credible. Under extreme torture, he had made a public confession
of his "crime", feeling that he might be able to save some of his co-accused
who had wives and children whereas he did not. He was sentenced to
beheading.
His brief descriptions made Saudi Arabia sound like a nightmare.
Foreigners, like himself, live in compounds. Since liquor is not officially
allowed, people in the compounds bring it in clandestinely or make their own
beer and wine. Their biggest worry is the religious police, who, in making
arrests, appear all to ready to use extreme force.
How could what occurred to Mr. Sampson happen? One explanation might be
that who calls the shots in Saudi Arabia is becoming less and less certain.
For about two centuries, the house of Saud has been in an intimate
relationship with Wahhabism, a fundamentalist form of Islam. Using its oil
revenues, it has funded Wahhabist schools throughout the Islamic world. It
has also used such revenues to fund terrorist groups such as Hamas and
Islamic Jihad on grounds that they also undertake charitable works. As well,
it has made a pact with the "great Satan", permitting American military
bases on Arabian soil, which many Moslems regard as holy because of its
historic role in the history of Islam. But while doing all of these things,
it has not done very much for its own population, which now contains many
seethingly angry young people.
The House of Saud is in a bind. As one source puts it:
… the House of Saud finds itself split between two antagonistic forces.
On the one hand, it desires to keep the United States as an ally, and
certainly not as an enemy. In order to do this, it must crack down on the
militancy brewing within Saudi society. On the other hand, by tightening the
leash on militant groups within Saudi society -- both physically and
financially -- Riyadh makes itself a target for these groups, thus risking
domestic stability. ( http://www.pinr.com/)
All of which suggests that what happened to Mr. Sampson and his
co-accused could happen because no one is quite sure of who is in charge or
just what to do. Those who feel they are in charge can, for whatever reason,
exercise their inhuman rights if they choose to do so. Some of the things
Mr. Sampson said suggested that he was being used as a personal punching
bag.
Another case of the exercise of inhuman rights involves another Canadian
citizen, Maher Arar, who happened to route himself via New York in coming
home on an international flight. For some incomprehensible reason, even
though he was traveling on a Canadian passport, the Americans deported him
to Syria, of which he is also considered a citizen because he was born
there. He spent a year in prison even though he was never charged with
anything. He is now on his way home, though presumably not via New York. It
will be interesting to hear what he has to tell.
Ed Weick
|