Saudi judge looking for hospital to deliberately paralyze a man as punishment

[Liberal_in_LA]

Saudi judge considers paralysis punishment
By SALAH NASRAWI, Associated Press Writer

A Saudi judge has asked several hospitals in the country whether they could damage a man's spinal cord as punishment after he was convicted of attacking another man with a cleaver and paralyzing him, the brother of the victim said Thursday.

Abdul-Aziz al-Mutairi, 22, was left paralyzed and subsequently lost a foot after a fight more than two years ago. He asked a judge in northwestern Tabuk province to impose an equivalent punishment on his attacker under Islamic law, his brother Khaled al-Mutairi told The Associated Press by telephone from there.

He said one of the hospitals, located in Tabuk, responded that it is possible to damage the spinal cord, but it added that the operation would have to be done at another more specialized facility. Saudi newspapers reported that a second hospital in the capital Riyadh declined, saying it could not inflict such harm.

Administrative offices of two of the hospitals and the court in Tabuk were closed for the Saudi weekend beginning Thursday and could not be reached for comment.

A copy of the medical report from the King Khaled Hospital in Tabuk province obtained by the AP said the same injury al-Mutairi suffers from can be inflicted on his attacker using a nerve stimulant, and inducing the same injuries in the same locations. The report was dated six months ago.

Saudi Arabia enforces strict Islamic law and occasionally doles out punishments based on the ancient legal code of an eye-for-an-eye. However, King Abdullah has been trying to clamp down on extremist ideology, including unauthorized clerics issuing odd religious decrees.

The query by the court, among the most unusual and extreme to have been made public in the kingdom, highlights the delicate attempt in Saudi Arabia to balance a push to modernize the country with interpretations of religious traditions that critics say are out of sync with a modern society.

------------------------

According to Amnesty, in 2005, a convict in the kingdom had his teeth pulled out by a dentist because he had smashed another man's teeth out in a fight.

____


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/08/19/international/i072853D67.DTL&tsp=1#ixzz0x5HDP6jE

[uncommon]

1. Eye for an eye...

It's old school but not unprecedented.

Still, violates human rights in most of the world so definitely not okay.

[RandomThoughts]

3. It is crazy if true.

Eye for an eye was to reduce violence, and if a civilization has reached the ability to have prisons, then they don't have to hurt people.

What would be the intent of such a thing?

[ThatsMyBarack]

42. Two wrongs don't make a right!

[Subdivisions]

2. Saudis killed 3000 (+ numerous lives of first-responders) of our citizens

on 9/11 and no one raises an eyebrow.

[uncommon]

4. Um, wtf?

I'm pretty sure that is not relevant to this topic.

[Subdivisions]

8. What, Saudis can do 'efy for an eye' and everyone gets upset. Where is the

outrage over their killing our citizens?

[KamaAina]

12. 19 *individual* Saudis executed the 9/11 attacks.

Had the Saudi government done it, that would have been considered an act of war.

[Subdivisions]

bush and House of Saud = BFFs. n/t

[uncommon]

13. Our entire country has been in a constant state of outrage for 9 years.

Wtf are you on about?

[Subdivisions]

17. Really? Then why is the subject of 9/11 relegated to a place called "The Dungeon"? n/t

[rug]

6. Why don't you fly a plane into the Kaaba?

[Subdivisions]

7. Why would I do that? n/t

[rug]

15. It may raise an eyebrow.

[ceile]

27. Ha!

;-)

[Subdivisions]

39. What the fuck are you laughing at? n/t

[Subdivisions]

28. Let me make something clear since you obviously don't know me...

and considering I've been on DU/GD for years, you should know me by now. And, if you don't, it is not my fault that you don't know where I'm coming from.

So, let me spell it out for you: I don't have a problem at all with regular Saudi people or with Muslims. I have a problem with the Saudi Royal Family and Saudi religious "justice". I hope this guy doesn't get punished by having his spine severed so he'll be paralyzed. That is a terrifying scenario that should not go un-denounced.

So, I ask you again, why would I, Subdivisions of DU, want to fly a plane into the Kaaba? And what have I EVER POSTED that would lead you to the conclusion that I would ever fly a plane into the Kaaba?

Please answer.

[rug]

31. Then maybe you should be more artful in your posts.

To answer your question, your post had all the imprecision of hundreds of other bomb them all, sort them out later posts. I simply encouraged you.

[Subdivisions]

33. You didn't encourage shit. You made false assumptions, just as

ET Awful has (Edited to add: who has put me on ignore based on the same unfounded assumptions and who has charged me with "having contempt for the entirety of the Saudi populace", which is ridiculous), that are patently un-founded based on my record on this forum. I'm one of the most un-racist people you will ever know or meet. You don't fucking know me! And that is your goddamned fault! I'm here every fucking day!

If I made a clumsily worded post that failed to make my point, that is my fault for being in a hurry to catch up with the events of the day on DU. If you weren't stuck up your own ass and took the time to know me, this would not have happened because you would have known where I was coming from.

After all, I've been here in GD for years EVERY SINGLE DAY. And I have NEVER posted ANYTHING that could even REMOTELY tag me as a racist or bigot.

[ET Awful]

9. Who did? The Saudi hospital? The Saudi judge? The guy they want to punish in such a horrific way?

Who are you talking about?

And, as already asked, what the hell does one have to do with the other?

[Subdivisions]

11. Nothing, then. I'm wrong. Saudis are all around cool. Sorry! Damn. n/t

[ET Awful]

16. I see. . . . your position is that all Saudis are evil then?

Or is it that all Saudis are responsible for 9/11?

Oh wait, you haven't actually made a point yet. You've just leapt from discussion A to unrelated point Y without stopping anywhere along the path to make a logical connection.

[Subdivisions]

18. And, yet, here you are, participating in my discussion.

:eyes:

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Subdivisions]

21. My sub-thread. You are, of course, more than welcome to put me on ignore. And your

attempt to paint me as a bigot/racist won't work. My record is clear on this forum.

Goodbye...

[Subdivisions]

40. Nobody that knows me would ever chage me with such a ridiculous claim. This

poster says "It is duly noted that you have contempt for the entirety of the Saudi populace though instead of just those who actually engage in such vile acts." Not only has this poster made this claim against me, he has place me on ignore based on his own erroneous assumptions without the slightest evidence that such a thing is part of my character.

This is a patently ridiculous charge by this poster who doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about. This poster has placed me on ignore based on this lie which he has created out of thin air.

I am not now nor have I ever been racist against the people of Saudi Arabia. I do have a major problem with the House of Saud and with the fanatical religious justice meted out to what must be an extremely terrified populace that lives in oppression at the hands of their fanatical justice system.

I cannot let such attacks on my character stand without comment.

[Subdivisions]

41. Where did I say either of those things? n/t

[ET Awful]

43. See your first post in this thread where you lump all Saudis together?

(Yup, you're not on ignore)

See that. You know, the post that originally said "they" then you edited to read "Saudis". See that?

See where you try to make an all-encompassing sweeping statement lumping all Saudis together? See that?

Or did you totally forget what you posted (and later edited)?

You're the one trying to lump the entirety of the Saudi populace together. You're the one who did that. It wasn't imagined by anyone here.

Now, if you wish to clarify how your lumping of the entire populace of Saudi Arabia into "they killed xxxxx on 9/11" somehow relates to the topic of this thread, I'm ready to see it.

If you want to explain how you can make a statement like that and not have others take it as contemptuous, please do so.

BTW your "I've been here a long time" argument means nothing. I've been here even longer . . . it means nothing.

Now if you want to clarify your original statement that "They killed 3000" (which you later edited to Saudis which when taken as a reply to the original post still shows that you are encompassing all Saudis into your statement), please do it.

I doubt you will, you'll just jump up and down and accuse me yet again of pointing out what your post said.

[Subdivisions]

44. You made a FALSE assumption about me. I don't owe you a goddamned thing.

Indeed, I can say anything I want to and if you don't like it, then you can move on!

My emphasis has always been on the government and religious fanatics (the Saudis) RUNNING Suadi Arabia and the SAUDI terrorists that hijacked those planes on 9/11. THAT IS WHO "THEY" ARE in all of my posts. I have NEVER referred to the people themselves, whom I have absolutely no problem with. In fact, I feel sorry for them having to live under a religio-fanatical "justice" system and a cabal that denies women equal rights!

You accused me of being a racist and there is NO evidence on this board of me EVER being racist. If you had bothered to know me before now after YEARS of me posting in GD and on this website, you would surely know that. But you DIDN'T BOTHER to know me. You just made your UNFOUNDED charge against me. Do you notice that YOU, along with one other (who ALSO doesn't know me), are the only ones to flame me for my 9/11 post? If I was the racist you claim I am, where is everyone else? They aren't here because THEY KNOW ME! That YOU DO NOT KNOW ME is you fucking fault. You made a ridiculous claim that you cannot now take back because THAT is YOUR character.

I was NOT trying to lump the ENTIRETY of the Saudi populace together. I am NOT a racist. And I will not stand for you either implying or asserting that I am.

NOTHING else about this thread matters! YOU were WRONG!

Now, you can continue to FALSELY call me out as a racist if you want to and you can go on believing that with one stupid sidetracked post that I suddenly became a racist overnight if you want to. But you WILL NEVER BE RIGHT about it. Not EVER!

[ET Awful]

50. I didn't accuse you of being a racist, you said that, not me.

Saudi isn't a race, it's a nationality.

But I think you knew that. You just don't want to admit that when you said "they" you were lumping all of Saudi Arabia into your little nonsensical diatribe.

Or perhaps by your "they" you were referring to the Saudi government (who the perpetrators of 9/11 hate because they allowed the US to build bases on Saudi soil)?

You really have an anger management problem don't you?

Of course, I've seen people in the US many times clamor for the same eye for an eye bullshit, usually in more drastic ways that involve killing people to show that killing people is wrong. You know, the type that say that if some evil bastard kills someone he should be killed in the same way. Then there's also the ones here who joke about prison rape and say it's just punishment for crime xxxxx.

How exactly are they any better?

Perhaps instead of saying "they" or correcting it to Saudis" you should direct your ire not at me but at the entire "eye for an eye" mentality on display which isn't limited to Saudi Arabia, nor is it limited to Muslims.

[leftynyc]

5. What the fuck is with that country?

They just refuse to leave the 14th century. That a doctor would even consider doing this makes my blood run cold. What part of "do no harm" is too difficult for these savages.

[KamaAina]

10. What incentive do they have?

As long as they've got oil, TPTB could give a crap if they knock their women down with clubs and drag them into caves by their hair. (Which, come to think of it, would not really surprise me all that much if it were true.)

[Luminous Animal]

48. And they are allies of the U.S. of A!

[leftynyc]

49. I didn't realize a country

needed an incentive to become civilized.

[uncommon]

14. For a start, the oath doesn't say that. Second, this is in a backward ass country where I doubt

the standards are anywhere near the same.

[EOTE]

22. It doesn't say that?

"I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone." What am I missing?

[uncommon]

51. It's the

repetition of the phrase "first, do no harm" that we all learned from pop culture and tv - yes, the oath says not to harm anyone, but it doesn't say that phrase and it's irritating as all hell to hear it repeated 10000x.

[EOTE]

52. Well, it's the primary precept of medical ethics.

So it's certainly not surprising to hear it repeated. And as for the Hippocratic Oath, considering it didn't originate in English, it seems rather a semantic discussion. It's probably the most important overall concept and the concept first taught in medical school, so I'd expect it to be well known, with or without pop culture's assistance.

[leftynyc]

30. I was under the impression

that was part of the oath. My mistake. My outrage stands that any doctor would even consider this.

[snagglepuss]

37. It is a backass country due to its Islamic fundamentalism that abhors

democracy and modernity.

[slackmaster]

24. Saudi Arabia is an extreme example of what happens when a state establishes an official religion

It's something to be avoided.

[Nye Bevan]

45. Well.... the UK also has an official state religion

and they don't even have the death penalty, and life without parole is *extremely* rare in that country (single digits currently, I believe). Perhaps the problem is not a state having an official religion, but the nature of that religion. Whether it's a "love your neighbor as yourself" kind of religion, or a "72 virgins in paradise for bombing the great Satan" type of religion.

[LeftishBrit]

46. At one time, the UK state religion was a 'let's burn some heretics' sort of religion...

(in both its Protestant and Catholic forms); and a little later, disagreements as to the exact nature of the state religion led to civil wars. 'Loving your neighbour' was not always very prominent.

The main difference in this respect between the UK and Saudi Arabia is not in the nature of the holy book, but in that rigid imposition of state religion started to decline in the UK 300 or so years ago, and is now almost non-existent, whereas Saudi Arabia has made no progress in this respect.

[Old and In the Way]

19. While the House of Saud loads up on petro-dollars and lives that

good, old Western-style lifestyle...the rest of that society gets to live under a religious theocracy that keeps the people in line. Have an affair? Or you're a liberated woman? Big trouble. I'm not passing judgement on this specific act...seems barbaric on the face, but I understand victim rights, too. But I think Saudi Arabia society is the utopia that Republicans want to see here....the top 5% get to live by a different set of rules than the bottom 95%. And they'd be happy to let that 95% be judged and controlled by the RW Christian radicals that would love to be our society's judge on culture and virtues.

[old mark]

23. Ahh, more tales of our wonderful middle eastern friends...The Saudis

are rich barbarians, and friends of the Bush family....


mark

[bluestateguy]

25. I would not oppose bombing Saudi Arabia (but I would not condone it either)

Let's just say I would not be marching in the streets to protest if we did.

[one_voice]

26. And this is who the GOP/baggers....

use to defend their stance against Park51? The next time one of them uses the "until we can build a Christian church there" they should be reminded of this. And asked if they want to emulate this as well.

[kestrel91316]

29. An eye for an eye leaves the world blind. ALL religious fundies suck.

[LeftishBrit]

38. +1000 to both your points!

[mitchum]

32. Barbarians with oil

[SoCalDem]

34. Glenn Beck would do it for them

probably :rofl:

[Control-Z]

35. Just fucking sick. n/t

[mike r]

36. What century do they live in?

Freakin' unbelievable.

[smalll]

47. Yay! Go Muslims! Why, Islam is JUST as good as Christianity, or Judaism, or

any other contemporary world religion you could name. :eyes:

[AngryAmish]

53. How would you do this?

Just cutting the cord won't do. Imagine the spinal cord in cross section. On the inside of the cord is the stuff tat makes out heart beat, muscle tone, autonomic stuff, etc. On the outside is motor stuff. Imagine inserting a balloon beside the cord and slowly filling it until blood flow stops to the outside nerves, wait until you have some loss then presto - induced paralysis. Kinda like man-made spinal stenosis from a centrally herniated disc.

Of course, it would be wrong to do so.