Of course. It would be impossible to do otherwise.
IMO you had a solid point but are going off the rails on this. (1)You still haven't provided any evidence that Saud is taking part in this. Which IMO is very doubtful. As I may have stated before it just seems like certain people there turn a blind eye to it. And with all the other crap going on the scale of (2)it isn't enough to warrant US attention.
You offer what strikes me as a sincere response
(unlike some adolescent type who's desperate for attention
), but I feel that you're misreading the situation in a couple of areas.
1. As Westerners, we're both familiar with the concept of LEGAL guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and--in THAT sense--you're correct that we couldn't convict the Saudi royals in a court of law...but that's not what I'm talking about here, and such a standard is impossibly, absurdly high in this case. We're talking about a despotic country where a woman is forbidden to leave the house w/o her husband or a male relative's accompaniment. Even a male whistleblower would have to risk his life to catch one of the Saudi big shots red-handed on videotape...and then he'd have to flee his home country and live the rest of his life in hiding for fear of retliation from al-Qaeda assassins for daring to expose their Saudi benefactors.
I'm referring to the court of public opinion and common sense, where we have more latitude in placing moral culpability on someone or a particular group.You're being overly generous( to the point of naivete...no personal offense intended) when you trust that the Saudis are merely disinterested in the legal paperwork of prosecuting sex slave traders. Many Asian sex slave traders have already admitted that they routinely provide victims to influential politicians, so is there any sane reason to think that the Sauidis are any different?? Keep in mind that Wahabbists(which is the pseudo-Islamic cult ALL of the Saudi rulers belong to) treat rape to satisfy their longings as an entitlement, especially young virgin children with, apparently, boys being the preference for lots of them. At the most lenient, the Saudis should be charged with criminal negligence in a UN human rights tribunal for ignoring vile men who brazenly shout out their offers in open markets as if they were selling fruit(though, as we've seen, Saudi oil= legal immunity), and it HAS been proven that they fund the terrorist fanatics who are running the slave trade.
2. It all depends on what you consider newsworthy, but I'll take you to England for another perspective on things.For YEARS, there were loads of rumors about pedophiles in Parliament, and well-known alternative media investigators like David Icke had raised the issue for everyone, so it wasn't any complete shock to the British mainstream media once the alternative media was lucky enough to acquire enough irrefutable empirical evidence to expose the MP pedophile network. At first, the mainstream press just released flat, asinine denials and attacked the accusers. Then, after they realized what a large percentage of the British public had tuned into the alternative media exposure, the mainstreamers quickly went into damage-control mode, claiming that there were only a couple of perverts here and there, amongst other attempted BS trickery tactics.
What truly shed a whole new light on things was that certain media bigwigs were ALSO implicated in the pedophile ring, so the mainstream press wasn't just protecting statesmen out of patriotic pride----they were shielding their own people from prosecution. Although I obviously don't blame YOU for this, your own media has shielded pedophiles like Barney Frank, Dennis Hastert, John Sununu, Larry Craig and even Daddy Bush for years. Is that just a co-incidence, or do they look out for their favorite political sons and daughters? Though England is the hive center for freemasonry that incorporates ritual child sexual abuse, there are scores of masons in the US executive ranks as well, which includes the corporate media.
In conclusion, I offer you the assertion that it's definitely NOT lack of evidence that causes your media's disinterest in the Saudi-Yemen sex slave trade. Rather, they're looking after their corporate bosses' alliances with Saudi oil suppliers and, quite likely--as the Brits did and the American mainstream press has also done for years--they're enabling an international pedophile network that their bosses directly participate in