|
Greetings, Ed,
Your
write-up left me with the impression that Sampson was caught manufacturing and
possessing alcohol. Agreed that beheading is excessive, but I will note that it
is common in Muslim countries for extreme potential punishments to be announced,
but then commuted to far more humane ones -- such as
deportation.
Expat
compounds in the 3rd world are often regarded by their inhabitants as places
unto themselves, free from the law of the host country. With its oil
culture, the expats in Saudi have been notorious for this, compared, say, to
those in Egypt or Kenya.
If
Sampson was also involved in more serious things, such as murder and/or abetting
some other criminal activity, then he can count himself very lucky.
I
didn't see the interview with Mansbridge, nor have any independent knowledge of
Sampson. I do know that criminals can come across as sincere and innocent, so
I'll keep an open mind with regard to the extent of his activities... I am
curious about how the alcohol role figured into the interview story, if the
alleged charges were murder, etc....
Cheers,
Lawry
I understand what you are saying, Lawry.
I've been in dry communities in northern Canada where alcohol consumption was
not permitted, and one had to observe the rule publicly. But no one
would threaten to behead you if you had a quiet nip in your hotel
room.
Be that as it may, the crime Sampson was
alleged to have committed was of planting a bomb that killed an engineer named
Christopher Rodway. He was also accused of being a spy for the
British government. There is good reason to believe that he was
neither a bomber nor a spy. What it seems he really did, and he admitted
as much in the interview, was try to help someone who was in trouble with the
police leave Saudi Arabia. It didn't work.
From the interview, Sampson did not strike me
as someone who did not know the rules or broke rules casually. He is in
his forties, has been around, and has a doctorate in, I believe, one of the
sciences. To get a flavour of the man and what he went through, see: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/sampson/interview2.html
Ed
----- 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
|
