"Only dull people are brilliant at breakfast"
-Oscar Wilde
Brilliant at Breakfast title banner "The liberal soul shall be made fat, and he that watereth, shall be watered also himself."
-- Proverbs 11:25
"...you have a choice: be a fighting liberal or sit quietly. I know what I am, what are you?" -- Steve Gilliard, 1964 - 2007

"For straight up monster-stomping goodness, nothing makes smoke shoot out my ears like Brilliant@Breakfast" -- Tata

"...the best bleacher bum since Pete Axthelm" -- Randy K.

"I came here to chew bubblegum and kick ass. And I'm all out of bubblegum." -- "Rowdy" Roddy Piper (1954-2015), They Live
Saturday, October 27, 2012

Pre-Storm Big Blue Smurf Blogging: What They Said
Posted by Jill | 8:38 PM
Today's honoree: Melissa Harris-Perry, for reasons you will know when you watch this:



Any woman who votes for the Rmoney/Ryan ticket, knowing that Willard Rmoney has refused to withdraw his endorsement of Richard Mourdock and that Paul Ryan regards rape as just another method of conception, is just plain sick.

No, we do not judge women who are raped, though Goddess knows I've questioned the wisdom of painting oneself as a victim for eternity. But we do judge women who would willingly give power to men who regard them as subhuman, as mere vessels for potential babies that those same men can use as political footballs before they're born and then tell them that they are on their own afterward.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Saturday, October 01, 2011

Saudi Arabia, NY 11215
Posted by Jill | 12:42 PM
First we have a police officer spraying pepper spray at female protesters. Now it seems that in Brooklyn, they're stopping women in the street and telling them to cover up:
In response to a string of at least 10 unsolved sexual assaults in Brooklyn, New York police are reportedly stopping women on the street who are wearing clothing they say is revealing and advising them to cover up if they don’t want to be raped. The Wall Street Journal reports on the disturbing message police officers are allegedly spreading:

Lauren, a South Slope resident, was walking home three blocks from the gym on Monday when she was stopped. The 25-year-old, who did not want her last name to be used, was wearing shorts and a T-shirt when she claims a police officer asked if she would stop and talk to him. He also stopped two other women wearing dresses. [...]

He pointed at my outfit and said, ‘Don’t you think your shorts are a little short?‘” she recalled. “He pointed at their dresses and said they were showing a lot of skin.”

He said that such clothing could make the suspect think he had “easy access,” said Lauren. She said the officer explained that “you’re exactly the kind of girl this guy is targeting.”



Aside from the sense I have that this is more about the police officers' view of women than it is about keeping them safe, it also shows a profound ignorance of what rape is. It's an act of aggression that takes the form of a sexual attack. It is not an act of uncontrollable lust. If it were, we wouldn't hear about 80-year-old women getting raped in their apartments.

How can any woman who is assaulted in South Slope have any hope of being treated in good faith by the police, when the law acts like mullahs on the streets of Saudi Arabia?

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Don't insult my intelligence
Posted by Jill | 5:14 AM
You know, I can understand that sometimes when two people are in a room together, there can be a point where the line between consent and rape can become blurred. This is one reason why I've always wanted our society to stop this ridiculousness about women having to be "swept away" by the moment in order to not be considered a slut. It's what keeps girls from carrying a diaphragm or condoms if they don't want to be, or can't be, on the pill. The double standard was kept at bay for many years, even if it is making a comeback now, fueled by conservatives who, masters of projection that they are, can't control themselves and can't imagine being someone who can.

But there is no universe in any kind of human consciousness where a 32-year-old West African hotel housekeeper enters the room of an aging lecher and is so seized with desire for his sagging scrotum that she falls into bed with him. And yet that is what the lawyers for IMF head Dominique Strauss-Kahn would have you believe.

One of the few benefits of Frank Rich leaving the New York Times (and there are precious few), is that Maureen Dowd seems to have decided it's time to grow the hell up and work on fighting her inner high school mean girl. Today in the paper she blasts this insulting framing right to smithereens:
Oh, she wanted it.

She wanted it bad.

That’s what every hard-working, God-fearing, young widow who breaks her back doing menial labor at a Times Square hotel to support her teenage daughter, justify her immigration status and take advantage of the opportunities in America wants — a crazed, rutting, wrinkly old satyr charging naked out of a bathroom, lunging at her and dragging her around the room, caveman-style.

Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s reputation as a thrice-married French seducer loses something in the translation.

According to the claims of the 32-year-old West African maid, what took place in the $3,000-a-day Sofitel suite had nothing to do with seduction. If the allegation is true, Strauss-Kahn’s behavior, boorish and primitive, is rape.

Was the chief of the International Monetary Fund telling other countries to tighten their belts while he was dropping his trousers? Lawyers for the 62-year-old Frenchman, who had been a leading Socialist prospect to run against Nicolas Sarkozy next year, seem ready to rebut any DNA evidence by arguing that sex with the maid who came in to clean his room was consensual.

[snip]

Strauss-Kahn’s French defenders are throwing around nutty conspiracy theories, sounding like the Pakistanis about Osama. Some have suggested that he was the victim of a honey-pot arranged by the Sarkozy forces.

Bernard-Henri Lévy, a friend of the accused, says he is outraged at the portrayal of Strauss-Kahn as an “insatiable and malevolent beast.” He wrote on The Daily Beast: “It would be nice to know — and without delay — how a chambermaid could have walked in alone, contrary to the habitual practice of most of New York’s grand hotels of sending a ‘cleaning brigade’ of two people, into the room of one of the most closely watched figures on the planet.”

At least he didn’t mention Dreyfus.

For years, I’ve stayed at the Sofitel and other hotels in New York City, and I’ve never seen a “brigade,” simply single maids coming in to clean.

In Washington, they have now nicknamed the street that separates the I.M.F. and the World Bank, where Paul Wolfowitz lost his job over financial hanky-panky with his girlfriend, the Boulevard of Bad Behavior.

These are the two institutions that are globally renowned for lecturing the rest of the world on discipline and freedom, when it’s the West that’s guilty of recklessness and improvident behavior. First in finance, then in sex.

People who can’t keep their flies zipped lecturing other people.


We've had so many instances of rich and/or powerful men in rooms with women where what emerges are battling famewhore lawyers, with the lawyer for the accused rapist insisting that the women are lying, or that they consented. But to use this claim with an immigrant woman, working as a hotel housekeeper, who goes into a hotel room to clean, is just an insult to our intelligence.

Last year Mr. Brilliant and I took a 5-day cruise to Canada. Perhaps the high point of the entire trip was returning to New York on our last day, early on a sunny morning, with cool temperatures and a light breeze blowing as we stood on deck. And as we entered the harbor, there she was -- a giant green statue of a woman holding a torch. The rising sun cast a golden glow around the Statue of Liberty that morning. And as I gazed at her, I found myself moved to tears, thinking of my own grandparents, and the millions of others who saw that same statue, perhaps at that same time of the morning, standing in the harbor with a golden glow around her, beckoning like a goddess as if to say, "Come on in...you are welcome here."

The woman at the center of this case probably didn't have that view; she probably came in by plane. But though I don't know her, I know that she came here with the same hopes that my forebears had. I hope she prevails in court against one of the most powerful men in the world. I hope that this country, the promise of which drew her here and now draws her into the system of justice that the green lady in New York harbor represents, lives up to its own self-image.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Time for the New York Times to dispatch McKinley again
Posted by Jill | 6:16 AM
I for one would love to see James C. McKinley spin this rape to "the bitch asked for it":
Two Memphis boys, aged 7 and 9, alleged to have raped a 2-year-old girl last August were placed in protective custody on Monday.

Shelby County Juvenile Court Magistrate Dan Michael turned the boys over to the state's Department of Children's Services after the prosecution asked that they be put in custody for treatment rather than punishment.

The boys' attorneys, James Sanders and Samuel Jones, had both asked that the boys be allowed to receive rehabilitative services from the state while in their own homes.

Sanders, who represents the 9-year-old, said there were "clearly no winners" in the situation.

"You've got a victim who certainly is going to probably bear the scars of this incident for years to come," he said.

"And you've got two young, alleged perpetrators who are going to have to carry the burden of this offense with them for years to come.

Wait. Maybe he wrote this Reuters story too. After all, the REAL victims of rape are the perpetrators, right?

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Thursday, February 24, 2011

Thursday Anthony Weiner Blogging
Posted by Jill | 10:21 PM
Because we are going to post videos of His Awesomeness in action whenever we find them:




(via ABL)

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Tuesday Big Blue Smurf Blogging: What They Said
Posted by Jill | 9:33 PM
Today's honoree is Amanda, who puts the sexual assault and beating of CBS journalist Lara Logan in context.

Money quote:
It says nothing about Egypt but that they’re a patriarchy that this happened. It says nothing about the claims of the protesters otherwise, and it may not say anything about the future of women. It definitely says nothing about whether or not this people or that people can self-govern. It simply says that when we raise men from the cradle to think of women as the gender that serves and is dominated, rape will become an expression of power and dominance. Gang rapes happen here. They happen pretty much everywhere, because patriarchy is a worldwide injustice. Rapes are about this oldest injustice, and this ugly spot on the stain of all humanity. Crowds of men, struggles over power, women as objects. It’s a formula that leads to this. The leg to kick out from under that to prevent this is not struggles for government control, which are part and parcel of being human. Or people hitting the streets, demanding their rights. The leg to kick out is the worldwide belief that women are second class. Then and only then will rape stop.


On a somewhat related subject here at home, I'll try to have some commentary on the South Dakota Legalization of Murder Act tomorrow.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Friday, February 04, 2011

The misogyny of Republican men knows no bounds
Posted by Jill | 10:59 PM
Just as the Democratic Party exists so that we can delude ourselves that we have electoral choices, Republican women like Michele Bachmann, Sharron Angle, and Sarah Palin exist so that conservative women can delude themselves that the men in their party don't hate their guts.

Another shining representative from the "The Bitch Was Askin' For It" Party:
U.S. House Republicans have received a great deal of attention over the past week since seeking to qualify the crime of rape with the term “forcible” in a high-profile piece of legislation. Such a distinction could create classes of rape victims, with “forcible rape” victims somehow being ordained as worse off than victims of statutory rape, date rape, rape by coercion or deception, rape of the disabled or mentally impaired… You get the picture.

But what if rape victims could no longer be referred to as “victims” at all? What if people who have endured this horrible – and already chronically underreported -- crime could only be called “accusers”?

Georgia Republican state Rep. Bobby Franklin (of gold-standard-wannabe fame) has introduced a bill to change the state’s criminal codes so that in “criminal law and criminal procedure” (read: in court), victims of rape, stalking, and family violence could only be referred to as “accusers” until the defendant has been convicted.

Burglary victims are still victims. Assault victims are still victims. Fraud victims are still victims. But if you have the misfortune to suffer a rape, or if you are beaten by a domestic partner, or if you are stalked, Rep. Franklin doesn’t think you’ve been victimized. He says you’re an accuser until the courts have determined otherwise.

To diminish a victim’s ordeal by branding him/her an accuser essentially questions whether the crime committed against the victim is a crime at all. Robbery, assault, and fraud are all real crimes with real victims, the Republican asserts with this bill.


(Via Angry Black Lady. And yeah, what she said.)

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Sunday, January 30, 2011

Around the blogroll and elsewhere: Sex-Obsessed Republicans Longing for the Dark Ages edition
Posted by Jill | 5:06 AM
Because when politicians and writers on the right starts talking about sex, they're telling you an awful lot about themselves.

Amanda on Maggie Gallagher's strange world in which legal abortion leads to anal sex and how the world was much better when women would grit their teeth, lie back, and think of England. And extra bonus points for this rant about Rush Limbaugh's view that advising people to eat fruits and vegetables is a Kenyan Socialist Communist Fascist plot by four-eyed aliens named Gallaxhar.

Melissa, whom I've knocked on more than one occasion for an ever-expanding definition of rape that turns every woman into someone who was victimized at some point, makes a very valid point about how Chris Smith and the Republican House of Representatives want to give men a roadmap as to how to avoid a rape rap and as a bonus, force women to carry their children.

Scott over at World-o-Crap channels his inner Driftglass and demolishes this lunatic article bemoaning The Descent of Women. Because we all know that women had it so much better when they could have their heads cut off for not delivering sons on cue.

Evan McMorris-Santoro at TPM shows that with Democrats like this, who needs Republicans? Perhaps Daniel Lipinski ought to actually read the bills he co-sponsors.

Sady at Tiger Beatdown: "Instead of maintaining that rape is always rape, that there’s no such thing as a “minor” or “excusable” rape, the GOP is putting forth a bill that says some rapes are so very minor and excusable as not to warrant consideration."

Taking a stroll down memory lane over to I Blame the Patriarchy, back to Bill Napoli's musings about the kind of virtuous, untouched, pure virgin he might allow to have an abortion if raped. Think about it. Chris Smith is even more nutty than Bill Napoli. And so is the current Speaker of the House.

AK Muckraker with examples of what kinds of sexual assault would now be redefined as essentially consensual. One wonders what the impact would be on prosecutions of people who use date rape drugs and then assault unconscious women. If rape is redefined for the purpose of funding of abortions, why not redefine it for the legal system as well?

RMuse at Politics USA wonders: just who are the ones imposing tyranny and stealing liberty here, when the House is starting to resemble the Westboro Baptist Church?

Was this a real enough rape to satisfy Chris Smith, Daniel Lipinksi, and John Boehner?

Dennis G. at Balloon Juice makes special note of how this bill protects child predators, which makes me wonder just what kind of secrets Rep. Chris Smith and others who support this travesty are hiding. After all, when Republicans start ranting about the morality and sexual practices of others, they're telling you a great deal about themselves.

And where ARE those jobs, anyway, Mr. Boehner?

Labels: , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Sunday, December 19, 2010

Please. Aren't we supposed to be able to hold two ideas in our heads at once?
Posted by Jill | 10:36 AM
There are a number of reasons I haven't written about the whole Wikileaks/Assange mess. One of them is that jurassicpork is doing such a whiz-bang-up job of it, another is that I am again in work-seven-days-a-week-to-meet-a-deadline mode, and a third is that it requires more attention than I'm able to give it.

What grieves me about the blogtopia (™ Skippy) response to the arrest of Julian Assange on sex chatges in Sweden is that for a bunch of supposedly intelligent people, we sure are incapable of holding two conflicting ideas in our heads.

Isn't it just possible that Julian Assange is both a crusader for truth AND an incorrigible douchebag where women are concerned? Do we have to ignore the service that Wikileaks may be doing in getting truths out to a public from which all too much is hidden because Assange is an asshole? And conversely, do we have to automatically brand Assange innocent of sex charges just because we may value what he's done with Wikileaks?

Now, I'm on record many times as stating that I think the tendency among much of the feminist blogosphere to brand every kind of unwanted sexual attention as "rape" not only minimizes the horror of rape, but it creates a culture of victimology that makes it impossible to live a normal life. I'm not claiming to tell anyone how to respond to rape, but I fail to understand how it's empowering to call yourself a "survivor of rape" and then have every possible stimulus in the culture be a trigger for a hyperemotional response. I understand about sexism in the culture. I understand about the objectification of women. I also know first-hand what it's like to be with a guy in a fraternity house and be told that your choice is to have sex with him or have your chothes torn from you by force and thrown out the window. I went on after that to a) make a point of staying out of fraternity bedrooms; and b) live a normal life that includes a happy 24-year marriage.

Whenever we have a high-profile rape case in the news, the issue of "at what point can you withdraw consent" comes up. In an ideal world, you can withdraw consent at any time. In a real world where you're not having sex with an arrogant asshole who fancies himself an adventurer, you can withdraw consent at any time. You SHOULD be able to withdraw consent at any time. If Julian Assange is guilty of continuing to have sex after consent is withdrawn, it's definitely a type of sexual assault.

What I question is whether this particular case of sexual assault would become an international one, with involvement by Interpol, if Assange weren't pissing off some Very Powerful People. It's not all that much different from Republicans having the vapors over Paula Jones' claim of sexual harassment by Bill Clinton when many of them are doing the same thing. No one would have given a shit about what may have happened in that Arkansas room if Clinton hadn't been a Democratic president with high approval ratings. But he was pissing off some Very Powerful People. Former chief UNSCOM weapons inspector Scott Ritter, who was vocal about there being no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, was also pissing off some Very Powerful People. Ritter still awaits trial from a January 2010 child endangerment charge resulting from an internet sex sting. It's the second time he's been caught in a similar sting after charges in a 2001 case were dismissed.

The question is not whether Assange is a creep or Ritter is a child predator. It certainly appears that Assange IS a creep and Ritter IS a child predator. The question is whether sex charges are being pursued not to protect women (in the case of Assange) or children (in the case of Ritter), but instead for political reasons. Given the overall misogyny in the culture surrounding women and sex, and the snickering and leering that otherwise normal men do about sexy-looking teenaged girls, I question whether sex charges in cases like these would be pursued with the same vigor if there were not strong political points to be made by prosecuting such people.

If Scott Ritter is a guy who can't control himself around teenaged girls, that would make him a sex criminal. It would NOT make him wrong about Iraq. If Julian Assange has a pattern of sexual misbehavior, it makes him a shithead that women should avoid. It doesn't mean that what Wikileaks reveals is not true.

It shouldn't be that difficult for us to keep these two ideas in our heads at the same time.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Wednesday Big Blue Smurf Blogging: What They Said
Posted by Jill | 4:22 PM
Today's honoree: Kate Harding, who says all there is to say about Roman Polanski. Because "artistry" does not mitigate raping a 13-year-old.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Thursday, April 02, 2009

Squandering American blood for rape and gay bashing
Posted by Jill | 5:53 AM
This is what our "noble" adventure in the Middle East has wrought? Legalized rape in Afghanistan, and summary execution of gays in Iraq:

LONDON, March 30, 2009 – Ground Zero for the so-called 'war on terror' is a nation where gays and lesbians live in real terror every day. Among the suffering of gay Iraqis is the regular threat (and carrying out) of rape and murder. In July, CNN reported on the case of a young gay man abducted for ransom and raped daily for more than two weeks.

More than 100 prisoners in Iraq are facing execution. Many of them, says an underground gay rights organization in the country, are believed to have been convicted of the 'crime' of being gay, the UK-based Iraqi-LGBT group revealed this afternoon.

According to Ali Hili of Iraqi-LGBT, the Iraqi authorities plan to start executing them in batches of 20 from this week. There is, said Hili, at least one member of Iraqi-LGBT who are among those to be put to death.

And the London-based group, which believes that a total of 128 executions are imminent, is calling on the UK Government, international human rights groups and the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva to intervene "with due speed" to prevent "this tragic miscarriage of justice" from going ahead.

"We have information and reports on members of our community whom been arrested and waiting for execution for the crimes of homosexuality," Mr Hili told UK Gay News.

"Iraqi-LGBT has been a banned from running activities on Iraqi soil," he revealed.

"Raids by the Iraqi police and Ministry of Interior forces cost our group [to the extent of] diapering and killing of 17 members working for Iraqi-LGBT since 2005.

"The death penalty has been increasing at an alarming rate in Iraq since the new Iraqi regime reintroduced it in August 2004.

"In 2008, at least 285 people were sentenced to death, and at least 34 executed. In 2007 at least 199 people were sentenced to death and 33 were executed, while in 2006 at least 65 people were put to death.

"The actual figures," Mr. Hili suggested, "could be much higher as there are no official statistics for the number of prisoners facing execution."


This is the "freedom" that the Bush Administration has wrought in Iraq. And so far the Obama Administration's Afghanistan policy does not appear to indicate any kind of attempts to overturn the recently-passed law legalizing rape in that country.

(h/t: Blue Girl)

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Friday, February 23, 2007

I wonder if when Bush said "When the Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down", he was referring to penises
Posted by Jill | 6:41 AM
It sure seems that way, now that a second Sunni woman has come forward alleging rape by Iraqi security forces:

An Iraqi police official in the northwestern city of Tall Afar said Thursday that a military officer and three soldiers had admitted to raping a Sunni woman and recording the act with a cellphone camera.

The four soldiers told an investigative committee convened by the Iraqi army that they sexually assaulted the woman nearly two weeks ago, according to Gen. Najem Abdullah, a police spokesman in Tall Afar.

The soldiers' statement follows another Sunni woman's assertion this week that she had been raped in Baghdad by members of Iraq's predominantly Shiite security forces. Iraq's Kurdish president and its Sunni vice president said Thursday that a judge should investigate her case, which the Shiite-led government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has dismissed as groundless.

Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said in a statement that the courts were "the only legitimate place to examine such allegations" and that the government should avoid steps that would "inflame sensitivities and create mistrust."

Talabani's stance, echoed by Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, is sharply at odds with Maliki's insistence that the 20-year-old Baghdad woman who contends three Iraqi policemen raped her Sunday is a criminal who fabricated the story to exacerbate sectarian tension and undermine a U.S. and Iraqi security plan to pacify the capital.


Nouri al-Maliki is the guy that the Bush Administration has been holding up as the leader as a new, free Iraq. I guess that freedom only applies to men, because it sure looks like al-Maliki's policy towards women who are raped by the Iraq military is to not just attack their credibility, but call THEM criminals. I wonder how the 3150 young Americans who have died in Iraq and the tens of thousands of others who left limbs or their sanity there would react to the idea that they gave their lives and limbs to make Iraq safe for rapists.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
Tuesday, February 20, 2007

This is what our policy in Iraq hath wrought
Posted by Jill | 7:39 PM
Riverbend:

As I write this, Oprah is on Channel 4 (one of the MBC channels we get on Nilesat), showing Americans how to get out of debt. Her guest speaker is telling a studio full of American women who seem to have over-shopped that they could probably do with fewer designer products. As they talk about increasing incomes and fortunes, Sabrine Al-Janabi, a young Iraqi woman, is on Al Jazeera telling how Iraqi security forces abducted her from her home and raped her. You can only see her eyes, her voice is hoarse and it keeps breaking as she speaks. In the end she tells the reporter that she can’t talk about it anymore and she covers her eyes with shame.

She might just be the bravest Iraqi woman ever. Everyone knows American forces and Iraqi security forces are raping women (and men), but this is possibly the first woman who publicly comes out and tells about it using her actual name. Hearing her tell her story physically makes my heart ache. Some people will call her a liar. Others (including pro-war Iraqis) will call her a prostitute- shame on you in advance.

I wonder what excuse they used when they took her. It’s most likely she’s one of the thousands of people they round up under the general headline of ‘terrorist suspect’. She might have been one of those subtitles you read on CNN or BBC or Arabiya, “13 insurgents captured by Iraqi security forces.” The men who raped her are those same security forces Bush and Condi are so proud of- you know- the ones the Americans trained. It’s a chapter right out of the book that documents American occupation in Iraq: the chapter that will tell the story of 14-year-old Abeer who was raped, killed and burned with her little sister and parents.

They abducted her from her house in an area in southern Baghdad called Hai Al Amil. No- it wasn’t a gang. It was Iraqi peace keeping or security forces- the ones trained by Americans? You know them. She was brutally gang-raped and is now telling the story. Half her face is covered for security reasons or reasons of privacy. I translated what she said below.


You'll have to read the rest of it here, because I want you to see the images from Iraqi television.

But it gets worse. George W. Bush's OTHER BFF, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is now claiming that Sabrine Al Janabi is lying. How does he know? Because he asked the officers and they said no.

Almost immediately, Shiite leaders lined up to condemn the woman and her charges as propaganda aimed at undermining the new security campaign. Sunni politicians offered the woman their support. Whatever the truth of the accusation, though, it played to sectarian fears on both sides.

For many Shiites, the charges appeared to be an attempt to smear them and attack the Shiite-led government; for Sunnis, the woman’s account only highlighted what they already believe to be true — that the Iraqi government cares little for justice and promotes a Shiite agenda.

Bitter exchanges between politicians of different sects were relayed to millions on television, interspersed with clips of the woman telling her story, her face veiled, just the tears in her eyes visible.

The Americans, who have advisers that work with the Iraqi National Police, found themselves caught in the middle and with no answers. The woman claimed that the Americans rescued her from the officers and gave her medical treatment. The American-backed, Shiite-led government said the Americans would show the woman’s claims to be false.

The American military said only that they were investigating the charges.

That was also the first response of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, who issued a statement soon after the woman appeared on television on Monday, promising a full investigation and the most severe punishment for anyone involved.

Only hours later, however, Mr. Maliki reversed himself. His office released a second statement after midnight local time on Tuesday, this one calling the woman a liar and a wanted criminal and going on to praise the officers involved.

“It has been shown after medical examinations that the woman had not been subjected to any sexual attack whatsoever, and that there are three outstanding arrest warrants against her issued by security agencies,” the second statement said. “After the allegations have been proven to be false, the prime minister has ordered that the officers accused be rewarded.”


And THIS is the government we're supposed to support? Remember all the rhetoric about Saddam Hussein's rape rooms? And this is different -- how?

Riverbend again:

I hate the media and I hate the Iraqi government for turning this atrocity into another Sunni-Shia debacle- like it matters whether Sabrine is Sunni or Shia or Arab or Kurd (the Al Janabi tribe is composed of both Sunnis and Shia). Maliki did not only turn the woman into a liar, he is rewarding the officers she accused. It's outrageous and maddening.

No Iraqi woman under the circumstances- under any circumstances- would publicly, falsely claim she was raped. There are just too many risks. There is the risk of being shunned socially. There is the risk of beginning an endless chain of retaliations and revenge killings between tribes. There is the shame of coming out publicly and talking about a subject so taboo, she and her husband are not only risking their reputations by telling this story, they are risking their lives.

No one would lie about something like this simply to undermine the Baghdad security operation. That can be done simply by calculating the dozens of dead this last week. Or by writing about the mass detentions of innocents, or how people are once again burying their valuables so that Iraqi and American troops don't steal them.

It was less than 14 hours between Sabrine's claims and Maliki's rewarding the people she accused. In 14 hours, Maliki not only established their innocence, but turned them into his own personal heroes. I wonder if Maliki would entrust the safety his own wife and daughter to these men.

This is meant to discourage other prisoners, especially women, from coming forward and making claims against Iraqi and American forces. Maliki is the stupidest man alive (well, after Bush of course…) if he believes his arrogance and callous handling of the situation will work to dismiss it from the minds of Iraqis. By doing what he is doing, he's making it more clear than ever that under his rule, under his government, vigilante justice is the only way to go. Why leave it to the security forces and police? Simply hire a militia or gang to get revenge. If he doesn't get some justice for her, her tribe will be forced to... And the Janabat (the Al Janabis) are a force to be reckoned with.

Maliki could at least pretend the rape of a young Iraqi woman is still an outrage in todays Iraq...


This so-called Iraqi government is every bit as distasteful as the one we have here. And why shouldn't it be? It is an evil administration, installed by an evil American administration. George W. Bush has created an Iraqi government in his own image. And this is why 3000-plus American kids have died? So that Sabrine Al Janabi could be gang-raped and then be called a liar by the Prime Minister of her own country?

There was a time when

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share