A Second Look Rotating Header Image

April, 2009:

A Second Look | Taliban gunmen shooting couple dead for adultery caught on camera – Telegraph

Apr 27th, 2009
by Tom.
No comments yet

via Taliban gunmen shooting couple dead for adultery caught on camera – Telegraph.

By Saeed Shah in Islamabad, Last Updated: 1:05PM BST 26 Apr 2009

Their deaths were squalid, riddled with bullets in a field near their home by Taliban gunmen as the execution was captured on a mobile telephone.

In footage which is being watched with horror by Pakistanis, the couple try to flee when they realise what is about to happen. But a gunman casually shoots the man and then the woman in the back with a burst of gunfire, leaving them bleeding in the dirt.

The video is from a telephone and typically unsteady, out of focus, and very amateurish. It is also censored. When you get to the part of the aforementioned execution, the screen goes black. That is our government protecting us.

Pakistani women disfigured from an acid attack by the Taliban

I am not going to post the video here. You can link to it from the via link at the heading. The video does not show the shooting which is the hook to get your interest, you know, “caught on camera”. But it is not there.

Anyway, that is not the most shocking thing about this story. What the author says about the deterioration of Pakistan into the hands of the Taliban and their Sharia Law is much more disturbing. Executing a couple for having an affair is just another example of the type of problems that the Taliban’s take over brings. Their movement toward Islamabad, the capital, is steady.

Their “crime” was an alleged affair in their remote mountain village controlled by militants in an area that was only recently under the government’s sway. It was the kind of barbarity that has become increasingly familiar across Pakistan as the Taliban tide has spread.

But this time, with black-turbaned gunmen almost at the gates of Islamabad, the rare footage has shown urban Pakistanis what could now await them.

Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff, has warned that Islamic extremists could take over the nation.

This should be a wake up call, not only for the city dwelling citizens, but for the world. It is quite possible that the Pakistani Army could fall to the Taliban and that is striking fear in citizens of the major cities who beforehand thought that the Taliban was just a border problem.

In the past few days the footage has circulated among Pakistanis who usually show little interest in the rough ways of the distant frontier regions.

They have now started to wake up to the fear that al-Qaeda-linked rebels from the frontier could take over their nation.

Last week, the Taliban had reached within 60 miles of Islamabad, in Buner district. Their takeover sparked panic in the West, which was already appalled by a peace deal that the government had signed this month with Taliban in adjacent the Swat valley.

In an extraordinary move, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, called on the people of Pakistan to defy their government, saying they “need to speak out forcefully against a policy that is ceding more and more territory to the insurgents”.

The Taliban had agreed a withdrawal, in the last couple of days, to their stronghold of Swat. That will scarcely make the government and elite in the capital Islamabad feel much safer, as Swat is only 100 miles from them.

The Pakistani enjoy a secular lifestyle. Their women can get an education and run for public office. They are advanced in arts and sciences. The life they enjoy no could come crashing down. When the government is ceding territory to the Taliban there is not much hope for the lifestyle they enjoy to continue.

“A Taliban victory will enslave our women, destroy Pakistan’s rich historical and cultural heritage, make education and science impossible, and make the lives of its citizens impossibly difficult. Some are already contemplating an exodus.”

Pakistan today stands on a knife-edge, threatened with anarchy. The desperate deal signed with the Taliban in Swat looks set to fall apart. The result will almost certainly be violence. An army convoy heading into Swat on Saturday morning was stopped by the Taliban and forced to turn back, in a naked display of their power.

They tuned back an army convoy. They are in control of territory. The Taliban, supported by al Qaeda, have a foothold in Pakistan, a country possessing a nuclear arsenal.

Years ago, the U.S. could have damaged the Taliban beyond the point of recognition, but it turned out that Afghanistan, more precisely the Taliban, was only an intermediate objective of George W. Bush. His eye had always been on Iraq, a nation that had no Taliban or al Qaeda at the time and had not threatened even it’s weakest neighbor in over a decade.

Instead of ridding the world of the Taliban when we had a chance, we took our eye off the ball and did the stupidest thing possible. We broke contact with the real enemy in order to satisfy an oil lust. The long range and lasting problems that decision has caused are just now coming to light.

We failed the people of Afghansitan, and the whole Middle East by making it possible for a militant group to eventually, possibly, gain control of nuclear weapons ironically set as a reason for illegaly invading Iraq. Now we must act. We have no choice. There are pundits on both sides of the political spectrum critisizing President Obama’s decision to escalate our presence in Afghanistan. I am on the side that says we have no other choice.

Share

A Second Look | Obama’s First 100 Days: ABC News Poll

Apr 26th, 2009
by Tom.
No comments yet

via Obama’s First 100 Days: Rising Hopes, Partisan Politics – ABC News.

Barack Obama approaches the 100-day mark with rising economic hopes, the best job approval rating at this point in 20 years, the broadest personal popularity since Ronald Reagan and half of Americans now saying the country’s headed in the right direction.

Click here for a PDF with charts and questionnaire.

For all he and his supporters have to celebrate, overcoming political divisions — an Obama pledge — is not among them.

Overall approval by party: Democrats – 93%  Republicans – 36%

Country headed in right direction: 50%, up from 19% on day 1.  Highest “right direction” in 6 years.

55% optimistic about economy – above 50% for first time in 3 years.

58% percent approve of Obama’s work on the economy.

Who’s better to lead the economy? Obama versus Republicans: 61-24%. Largest lead since 1994.

First 100 days: Better than expected – 54% (far above either Bush or Bill Clinton at the 100-day mark) Much or great deal accomplished? – 63% Keeping campaign promises? – 60%

Overall favorability? – 72%

Strong Leader? – 77%  (nearly matching Bush’s best a few months after 9/11)

Comparisons are in approve/disapprove format.

Torture: Obama’s blanket ban on torture? – 49-48% Down among Republicans/conservatives who listened to Cheney talk up torture. Release of secret Bush documents? – 53-44% Investigate Bush administration about torture? – 51-47%

Overall campaign against terrorism? – 62% favorable.

Federal budget defict? – 51-43%

Auto bailouts? – 41-53%

Reduced political partisanship? 37-54% (Can’t say he hasn’t tried. Identical to Bush’s numbers at 100 days.)

Brought change to Washington? – 62%

Approve of Obama’s willingness to meet with aggressive leaders? – 71%

Situation in Iraq? – 71%

General foreign issues? – 67%

Handling of Iran? – 54-35%

Strongly approve of his work overall? – 42%  Strongly disapprove of his work overall – 18%

Honest and trustworthy? – 74%

Trusted in a crisis? – 73%

Willing to listen to different points of view? – 90%

Understands the problems of people like you? – 73%

Shares your values? – 60-38%

Good commander-in-chief of the military? – 56-34%

Obama’s views on most issues? Too liberal – 33% Too conservative – 4% About right – 62%

That’s where I’m at. Obama is about right.

Share

A Second Look | McCain: Cheney Is Wrong, But Ed Schultz Is “Shameful”

Apr 26th, 2009
by Tom.
No comments yet

via McCain: Cheney Is Wrong, But Ed Schultz Is “Shameful”.

Appearing on CBS’s Face the Nation, McCain was asked about Cheney’s request for documents that would prove that the United States gained vital information from using torture techniques on detainees.

“Well, as you know, the vice president and I strongly disagreed on the fundamentals of this

Senator John McCain says Ed Schultz is "shameful"

issue,” McCain replied. “But the vice president of the United States has the right to weigh in on this discussion if he wants to.”

“Do you agree with him?” asked Bob Schieffer.

“No, I don’t think it’s necessary, to be honest with you,” replied McCain, who also reiterated his opposition to investigating the use of torture by the Bush administration. “But if the vice president feels it’s necessary, then I think he’s entitled.”

Then, rather abruptly, McCain declared: “And when extreme talk show hosts say that he wants another attack on the United States, I think that’s shameful.”

It’s a well known story. We all know it. John McCain has always been staunchly against torture, even fist-pounding, adamantly against it. McCain is one of our Viet Nam vets who actually was tortured and he knows first hand that torture brings out unreliable information. He and his fellow prisoners gave the North Vietnamese the wrong information purposefully to stop the captors for inflicting pain.

Then why did he vote against a ban on torture? In 2008 McCain voted against a law that would have banned the use of torture from CIA agents and would have compelled them to adhere to the Army Field Manual’s guidance. from the LA Times:

McCain was adamant that he wasn’t reneging on his belief that waterboarding is illegal under a law he sponsored in 2005 prohibiting “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment” of prisoners in U.S. custody. With waterboarding off the table, in McCain’s view, there’s nothing wrong with allowing CIA interrogators to use other methods not available to the military. Although McCain wasn’t specific about what those might be, the Army Field Manual bans subjecting prisoners to sleep deprivation, painful “stress positions” or extreme temperatures, or using dogs to intimidate them.

To be fair, McCain’s original anti-torture amendment also gave the CIA greater leeway — and that was the problem. As long as there is a double standard for interrogations, there will be suspicions that the CIA is engaging in practices that most reasonable people would consider torture — including waterboarding, which was inflicted on three suspected terrorists in 2002 and 2003. Such suspicion is deepened by signs that Bush doesn’t agree with McCain that waterboarding is now illegal. Earlier this month, Bush spokesman Tony Fratto said that it was legal and could be employed again “under certain circumstances.”

McCain weaseled away from his life-long position against torture in order to leave a opening in case he was asked on the campaign trail if he was for torture, something his base has been pumped into believing. He could say that he introduced a law that would give the CIA greater leeway.In other words he had to shift toward liking torture since Rush Limbaugh and George Bush like it. From the LA Times:

Instead [of voting his principles], McCain squandered some of his moral authority by supporting the Bush administration’s position that the CIA should have more leeway than military interrogators.

In McCain’s interview with Bob Schieffer while speaking about the former Vice President (who thinks he’s still viable), he said “And when extreme talk show hosts say that he wants another attack on the United States, I think that’s shameful.” McCain had said earlier in the interview that Cheney has a right to voice his opinion if he wants to, but now when Ed Schultz voices his opinion it’s “shameful”.

When someone has a life-long belief against torture and then shifts that belief at the end of his career just for political expediency then that is the epitome, the gold standard, of shamefulness.

Share
← Earlier Posts Newer Posts →
You are protected by wp-dephorm: