On Moral Equivalence: Response to Cleitus

My co-blogger Cleitus the Black is arguing that since "we did it too" we have no right to call "them" on it when "they" do it. I'm glad that he points us to the historical facts about US barbarity.

But two points:

1) It's not true that citizens like myself and Chloe have no right to call the kettle black since the US also has targeted civilians in past wars. First of all, I'm not sure what intel leads Cleitus to be so certain Chloe is a US citizen. Second, the fact that I am doesn't make me guilty of my country's crimes. In fact, I would argue it makes me more responsible for opposing those crimes, not less, which is partly the point of this blog.

2) Since two wrongs don't make a right, I hardly see how any of these arguments invalidate my earlier claim: that we ought to call barbarism what it is. That's as true of the US' enemies as it is of the US. Just as I would call it "war crimes" when engaged in by US troops (because that is a secular term that resonates in the US), I would/will call it harabism when engaged in by Muslims in the name of Islam. Just as "war hero" is inappopriate for US troops who target civilians; "jihadism" is inappropriate for Muslims who kill innocents in the name of their crusade, however justified. I don't need to be an Islamic scholar in order for this to be a legitimate claim. So there.

More on Justice in the Middle East

Hmmm, if 50-1000 lashes is a suitable punishment for rape in Saudi Arabia, what's a fair penalty for stealing some lumber in Iraq... Let's see what these US Army tankers have to say... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJC1unnuwds&feature=related ... Oh, wait, the title of this note should probably have been "More Injustice in the Middle East"... Rubbish...

Prince Faisal: International Community "Unfairly" Denigrates Saudis

Prince Faisal has distanced the Saudi government from a court's condemnation of a gang-rape victim to 200 lashes, but said "the judgment was being used to vilify the Saudi government." However ridiculous this statement is, it does tell concerned citizens something about the audience they need to persuade with their letters and phone calls.

Why not lobby the Saudi government on its own terms? One hardly must invoke Western standards of women’s rights or universal human rights to oppose this ruling: the sentence is unjust even according to Saudi standards (for a discussion of her lawyers' arguments click here). The ruling challenges (and justifies) King Abdullah’s efforts at judicial reform. And since the rapists were Sunni and their victim Shi’a, failing to commute the sentence will only make the “Girl from Qatif” a flashpoint for ethnic tensions in the Kingdom - something the authorities might care to defuse.

If advocates were to play on these concerns rather than invoking Western notions of gender justice or calling for invasion, they are likeliest to provoke a constructive response, rather than defensiveness.

In between calling the Saudi embassy, they might also lobby the Western media to stop giving a bully pulpit to the Justice Ministry’s claims that the victim has “confessed to adultery,” which if true can carry a sentence of death, rather than flogging.

Instead, reporters should focus on other under-reported aspects of the story:

The courage demonstrated by the victim’s husband in standing up for his wife in a culture where he is expected to kill her himself.

The fact that she is at as much risk from members of her extended family as from the state.

And how about the politically incorrect fact that both her companion and their rapists face flogging (up to 1000 lashes) as well? These too are human beings, eh?