brb with my response, Ted. And…I’ll probably win

Ignore that the Taliban sheltered those who sucker punched us. Tose are the guys who machine gun girls on their way to school, because they think that girls shouldn’t be educated.

They’re the ones who banned music, and used the ancient Buddha statues for artillery practice.

Christopher Hitchens described guys like you as entirely frivolous. He was too polite. You’re a useful idiot.

What do you do for a living? Odd question I know but I am curious.

“After reading the CNN article, it [obviously reflects] Cold War tactics by dishonoring one’s opponent, Afghanistan.” — Charlotte

See how that works? I can use only that–and it would characterize you wholly and only as against the article. C’est la Journalism. It has rules, and it has tricks.

First, to be clear, I did not claim–and certainly not with certainty–that Gulnaz’s testimony is false; I only said, “there is no reason to believe her.” More specifically, we should reject the idea that, “if a woman says that a man is a rapist then the man must be a rapist.”

In the US, even with a 10% level of false-accusation (and plenty respectable studies put the figure far higher), women lie about rape all the time–sometimes to get pity, sometimes to avoid punishment, sometimes for vengeance.

The potential for her to lie is there, and I reject the idea that a man should be assumed guilty–just to be safe–if ever a woman accuses him of rape. “But rape is too important to afford the accused Due Process!” No.

Furthermore, in setting aside the caricature of women generally–and Middle Eastern women specifically–as necessarily victims whenever they claim to be, the fact is that Afghan women are capable of lying–yes, even about rape. Gulnaz’s word should be no more immediately believed than the word of her alleged attacker. But remember: his words are in defense, and the burden of proof should be on the prosecutor, not the defender–even if the defender is a man.

The main journalistic problem that I have is that, in Afghanistan, there is no way that this man was brought before a court–let alone found guilty of rape–based on one woman’s word against his. However, if, impossibly, that happened then the journalists would mention it, and it would be a very easy and important mention: “[NAME of the guy] was found guilty of Rape by [the court's name] on [date].”

Speaking of names, and this is VERY important: if this guy was convicted of rape then the reporters could, should–and certainly would–use his name when reporting that he is a rapist. They would be derelict reporters if they did not mention his name and thereby warn his possible future-victims. However, they did not mention his name. Why not? For his protection? Laughable. Because of some Afghan law against naming rapists? Nope. Reason: it would have been libelous because he was not convicted of rape.

If he was named in an official document–and a court decision is an official document–then they can give his legal name; otherwise, if they were to name him then that would be libelous, and the reporters’ pants could be respectively and collectively sued off. However, had the man been convicted of rape, the reporters could have–and would have–used his name, and most likely his picture too. Can you even imagine a reason why they wouldn’t? I cannot.

However, remember this: reporters can refer to whomever they want, however they want, and it is not libelous–as long as the references do not identify the person.

The real story deserves plenty attention: a guy and gal are in jail for having premarital sex.

Also, consider the story in the context of customs, in many Middle Eastern countries, that require males to escort a female relative whenever she leaves the house: while not ideal, such are more measures of well-meant protection than many western woman-pitiers would like to believe.