Amnesty: Saudi terror law 'would strangle protest'

[cal04]

Source: BBC News

A secret new anti-terror law being drawn up by the Saudi authorities would "strangle peaceful protest", Amnesty International has said.

The BBC has been shown a classified copy of the draft law showing a number of measures Amnesty said would severely restrict human rights.

These include lengthy detention without trial, restricted legal access and increased use of the death penalty.

(snip)
Amnesty International's Middle East press officer James Lynch told the BBC the draft law - a copy of which was leaked to the human rights group - "seeks to entrench some of the most repressive practices that Amnesty has been documenting for years".

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14239259

[pennylane100]

1. Wow this is a real surprise.

The idea that the Saudi's would strangle peaceful protest is almost s bizarre as saying that they would not allow fifty percent of their citizens to drive. They are our allies and we would never condone such acts.

[MADem]

2. Like it's a walk in the park to "peacefully protest" in SA now?

So they put their excesses in writing, what else is new? They are not a very nice regime--never have been. Of course, the alternative to them, the uber-religious fanatics who act as enforcers for the 'family,' are easily just as bad, if not worse.

About the only cure for the excesses of the House of Saud is if they run out of oil and all have to start actually working for a living.

[awoke_in_2003]

4. you can't peacefully protest...

in America anymore. The 1st amendment says we have the RIGHT to peacefully assemble. But if you "peacefully assemble" and don't have a permit to do that, you will be arrested. If you have to ask for permission, it is no longer a right. The 1st Amendment in america is dead.

[Lithos]

3. The best tyranny that money can buy...

n/t

[SOS]

5. Criticizing the king = 10 years in prison

Since SA is a US puppet state, this increase in brutal repression will be ignored by the US government and media.
Good thing Hugo Chavez didn't do this!
The New York Times (and DU) would be lit up like a Christmas tree.

American concern for human rights is determined exclusively by who has an oil deal.

[MADem]

6. Hugo Chavez isn't backed by a religion that endorses monolithic judgments in the

name of morality. Cut off that head? Sure, it's in the Quran. Chop off that hand? Same deal.

Hugo Chavez had to consolidate power the old-fashioned way; and he isn't related by blood to all the power brokers in his country, either. The people who endure the worst treatment in SA, too, aren't even citizens--they are "guest workers," who often are enslaved. Amnesty International has covered this the best they can, but it's not terribly easy to get information in a society that is closed and repressive.

They're both totalitarian regimes; the question here is one of degree. And this isn't an "increase in brutal repression" in SA at all--it's the same crappy brutal repression as always. The only difference is, they took the time to write it all down and formalize it, rather than winging it as they've done in the past.