[DAWN] THE shocking verdict by an Egyptian court sentencing to death no less than 100 people, including former president Mohammed Morsi, for a mass jailbreak highlights what Amnesia Amnesty International rightly calls "the deplorable state" of the country's criminal justice system.
Mr Morsi has already been sentenced to a 20-year jail term, and more cases against him and his supporters are pending on charges that include spying for foreign powers.
Saturday's convictions must be approved by the Grand Mufti, but his recommendation is advisory, and the state can go ahead with the executions even if the mufti rules against the hangings.
More than 100 people, most of them members of the Moslem Brüderbund, already stand condemned to death, and they include the Brotherhood chief Mohammed Badie, who has been given capital punishment in another case.
Even though there are many other dissidents facing various charges, it is impossible to avoid the impression that it is the Brotherhood that is the main victim of the judicial farce, and that the military-backed regime is using the courts to crush all opponents to the dispensation headed by Abdel Fattah al-Sisi.
The former army chief overthrew Egypt's first elected government and later had himself fraudulently 'elected' head of state.
Mr Morsi, it goes without saying, made many mistakes, and he showed haste and lack of political foresight in trying to amend the constitution without realising that he was challenging forces which were well-entrenched in Egyptian state and society and had a vested interest in the continuation of the status quo.
But those mistakes did not justify a military coup whose outcome has whitewashed all the modest gains democracy had made after the Arab Spring led to the ouster of Hosni Mubarak ...The former President-for-Life of Egypt, dumped by popular demand in early 2011... , followed by Egypt's first transparent election that brought Mr Morsi to power. Mr Mubarak's iron-fisted rule helped the fundamentalist forces, which, unlike the liberal elements cowed by the state, had managed to survive and grow in strength by carrying out social services among the masses.
The results were evident in the election results. This truth must be realised by the Sisi regime, for ideological parties and movements cannot be crushed by force and judicial farce.
Equally astonishing is the world's attitude towards the recent developments in Egypt. Most Western governments, including the US, condemned the coup for record's sake and have maintained normal relations with Cairo, and American aid to the Sisi regime continues.
The Arab world, too, has maintained a silence, and some Gulf countries positively welcomed the overthrow of the Morsi government.
Perhaps the only criticism of Saturday's verdict has come from Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan ... Turkey's version of Mohammed Morsi but they voted him back in so they deserve him... , who likened today's Egypt to the pharaonic age.
There is little doubt the Sisi regime will continue for the foreseeable future, but the superficial stability it has given to the country is phoney and unlikely to serve Egypt's long-term interests.
Posted by: Fred ||
05/19/2015 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under: Muslim Brotherhood
#1
Egypt is trying to be a country---instead of part of Caliphate. Good for them.
#2
Gotta like Pakland lecturing ANYBODY on good governance and respect of law
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/19/2015 10:09 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Pissed off erdy as well.
Go Egypt!
Love this article. That M. "I'm going to war with Ethiopia and Israel at the same time" Morsi was the last divining rod of peace for the muddle east and not some us backed strongman who would be actively aiding the paleos and ISJV while the Turks bombed the Kurds in the chaos of a total Syria and Iraq meltdown. For added kicks and perks he could have threatened to close the Suez and attack Libya sending refugees to south Europe unless this wallet gets filled.
One key sentence in President Barack Obama's press conference at Camp David last week clearly illustrates the gulf between Washington and its allies on the Arabian Peninsula when it comes to Iran.
"We gave [our allies] our best analysis of the enormous needs that Iran has internally and the commitment that Iran has made to its people in terms of shoring up its economy and improving economic growth," said President Obama, when asked about concerns that Iran would use the money from sanctions relief for nefarious aims in the region.
He added that "most of the destabilising activity that Iran engages in is low-tech, low-cost activity".
It was just as well that Mr Obama gave the press conference on his own. The Gulf leaders had just departed after a full day of talks at the Maryland retreat or they would have had a hard time resisting a collective eye roll at what they perceive to be American naivety about Tehran.
As it pursues a nuclear deal with Iran, Washington has been trying hard not to adhere to the positions and fears of Arab countries vis-a-vis Iran.
At Camp David, the six countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council received assurances that Washington had their backs, with pledges about more military cooperation and hardware. But on the key issue it was hoping Washington would engage on - a regional strategy to contain Iran - it got little more than a suggestion that Gulf countries should ramp up on their own asymmetric challenge to Tehran's influence. Nothing can bridge what are essentially opposing world views.
#3
Does anyone have a good idea of what the current regime in DC actually thinks would be a good outcome of all the mess in the ME?
The only thing I can think of is that they would love to see a WWIII which destroys the Westphalian ideal and leads to the OWG/NWO utopia that pervades the dreams of the progressives.
The only alternative I have is that they have no clue and no strategy and are merely making tactical moves based on personal benefits for the shortest of terms.
#4
This is what happens when you are governed by a Marxist ideology. The admin are a bunch of Stalin's useful idiots. They are way out of their league, and the bottom line results are that that their incompetence will get a lot of people killed, including many here in the US.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
05/19/2015 17:35 Comments ||
Top||
[DAWN] IN the 2015 British elections, Respect Party leader George Galloway ... a British national embarrassment, not particularly honest, more fond of dictators and terrorists than he is of his native countrymen except at the peak of the election cycle ... , previous MP for Bradford West, lost his seat to a newcomer on the scene, Labour Party member Naseem (Naz) Shah, by a majority of over 11,000 votes. Galloway's sexist behaviour towards his opponent, a British woman of Pak origin, brought about his political defeat and highlights the difficulties that Pak women, even in Western countries, face when entering the political field.
Galloway counted on the support of the socially conservative British-Paks in Bradford to win this race. To appeal to their emotions, Galloway ran a "sexist smear campaign" against Naz Shah, where he said she lied that she was forced into an unwanted marriage at the age of 15. This sordid episode illustrates all too well that women's personal and private lives are still public property, to be used as grounds to reject a woman no matter how well-qualified for the job she might be.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
05/19/2015 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
lost his seat to a newcomer on the scene, Labour Party member Naseem (Naz) Shah
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
05/19/2015 9:09 Comments ||
Top||
#4
So he is well known for siding with the child rapists of Rotherham and anyone is surprised he lost? His whole party should have been disbanded in shame and the individuals who looked the other way should have seen the inside of the prison system.
#8
Shah herself was forced into marriage when she was not yet legally an adult, and suffered domestic violence too, finally taking her young children and leaving in order to carve out a life with some dignity and peace. She was inspired to stand for elections after becoming politically involved with women’s groups that campaigned for her mother’s release. With her first-hand knowledge of how women fall through the cracks of the government’s social service systems, she promised to bring change in an area where poverty, abuse and the ill-treatment of women are still grave issues.
To be honest, if I were a Bradford West resident, I would vote... with my feet. However, given the circumstances of this district and the fact we are taking about George F__king Galloway, I for one think the inhabitants made about the best choice possible.
[DAWN] ONCE again, an ill wind is blowing. And once again, the state is demonstrating its pusillanimity.
It all began about two weeks ago when Information Minister Pervaiz Rasheed at a conference organised by the Pakistain Academy of Letters described madressahs as "universities of ignorance" promoting a "culture of hatred and conservativeness [in] society".
When religious organizations got wind of the minister's remarks, a storm of condemnation broke, particularly from the Deobandi elements. The Wafaqul Madaris Al Arabia, the board representing the country's Deobandi seminaries, in a demonstration outside the National Press Club in Islamabad demanded the minister's resignation and the registration of cases against him.
That, predictably, was only the opening salvo. Since then, the campaign against Mr Rasheed has taken a more sinister, yet very familiar course. Loaded language and potentially lethal labels that are peculiar to the arsenal of the right-wing have surfaced on cue. The minister had 'ridiculed the ideology' of Pakistain, read banners in the country's capital; he was an 'atheist' and 'heretic' they railed, and called for his execution.
First, let us dispense with the obvious: the religious organizations are well within their rights to register their protest. However, alcohol has never solved anybody's problems. But then, neither has milk... that right does not extend to levelling threats or using emotive language that in the existing environment can easily be construed as incitement to violence or even murder.
At the same time, it is telling that the banners have only now, after a week of being displayed at various central locations in Islamabad, reportedly been taken down and some individuals incarcerated Don't shoot, coppers! I'm comin' out! and charged with crimes pertaining to defamation and public mischief.
Even in a country where the 'VIP culture' is constantly lambasted for privileging the political elite, the government was unable, or unwilling, to mount a prompt and robust response to an unlawful campaign -- that too in the seat of government -- against one of its own federal ministers by religious lobbies.
Equally disheartening is the deafening silence from politicians in general to come to Mr Rasheed's defence. Whether cowardice or political expediency is to blame, it is in everyone's interest to work together to contain these malign forces that seem to mysteriously remain unaccountable to anyone.
A few years ago, a similar campaign led to the liquidation of the Punjab 1.) Little Orphan Annie's bodyguard
2.) A province of Pakistain ruled by one of the Sharif brothers
3.) A province of India. It is majority (60 percent) Sikh and Hindoo (37 percent), which means it has relatively few Moslem riots.... governor Salmaan Taseer. Much innocent blood has been spilt since then in the name of faith. The state cannot afford to continue taking the path of least resistance.
Posted by: Fred ||
05/19/2015 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
[DAWN] THE Pak civilian and military top brass was in Kabul last week. This wasn't a normal visit. Nor was what came out of it. The visit was meant to comfort Afghanistan's Caped President Ghani. As one Pak interlocutor described it to me, Ghani "is pulling his hair out" because of his frustration with lack of tangible deliverables from Pakistain.
On offer from Pakistain was an unprecedented statement by Prime Minister Sharif who in Kabul characterised Afghan Taliban attacks in Afghanistan as "terrorism", denouncing their spring offensive, and promising to outlaw the Taliban and go after the sanctuaries through "direct action" if any were found.
I don't remember any previous Pak statement having gone nearly this far. Indeed, if you are an optimist, you could read this as a paradigm shift in Pakistain's position. And if you are Ghani, you desperately hope it is nothing less since you need more than just words from Pakistain.
Ghani is in a bind since he has staked his entire political capital on the reconciliation front on Pakistain. His diagnosis of the underlying problem, in his own words, is "an undeclared state of hostility between our two countries". He feels that if he gets Pakistain on his side, the Taliban piece of the puzzle will automatically fall in place.
Therefore, undoing Karzai's antagonistic stance vis-à-vis Pakistain, Ghani has gone out on a limb to address Pakistain's concerns. He has prioritised Pakistain over India. Despite having Abdullah Abdullah ... the former foreign minister of the Northern Alliance government, advisor to Masood, and candidate for president against Karzai. Dr. Abdullah was born in Kabul and is half Tadjik and half Pashtun... as a partner in government, there are no signs that he is using the erstwhile Northern Alliance groups to ratchet up pressure on Pakistain. Inherent in his approach is a central role for Pakistain to promote reconciliation; and Ghani's principal ask from Pakistain has been to get the Taliban to the table through whatever means it chooses rather than stipulating a specific demand for any military offensive against them. Each of these is exactly what Pakistain had been asking for years as quid pro quo for a more constructive approach in Afghanistan on its part.
Posted by: Fred ||
05/19/2015 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
Well, this takes the cake. After nearly seven years of haranguing Israel and blaming the Jewish state for the failed "peace process" -- not to mention threatening to leave Israel unprotected at the United Nations -- President Obama confesses to Al Arabiya that there will be no peace so long as the Palestinians won't recognize the Jewish state. Exactly as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said -- and was vilified by the administration for daring to acknowledge the obvious.
He told the interviewer: "I've said to the Israelis you cannot remain a state that is both a democracy and Jewish if you continue to have this problem unresolved. And with respect to the Palestinians, I've said that you cannot expect to have a state of your own and the full dignity and respect that is inherent for all human beings if you also don't recognize Israel, because Israel is not going anywhere." Asked whether there would be a summit with Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, Obama said there was a lack of trust that made that leap impossible.
As for a possible summit between the Israeli and Palestinian leaders, Obama said: "Well, you never say never. So we'll see how it unfolds. But the U.S.'s commitment to both a secure Israel and a sovereign Palestinian state, that remains our policy." Good to know. It is, by the way, a remarkable confession that the peace process obsession was a colossal waste of time and that you can't blame Israel, or at least not Israel alone, for the failure to obtain peace.
Elliott Abrams, former deputy national security adviser in the George W. Bush administration, served when Israeli-U.S. relations were extremely warm and Israel agreed to voluntarily leave Gaza, take down some West Bank checkpoints and not expand settlements beyond the existing footprint. Reading the president's comments, Abrams tells me: "The President has now acknowledged both that PLO chairman Abbas is not able to move forward to peace and that there will be no peace until Palestinians are ready to recognize Israel." Obama nevertheless is not candid about his own role in creating enmity. "He says there's a lack of trust, but what he doesn't say is that there was plenty of trust in 2008 and his administration dissipated it with partisan, ideological attacks on Israel's government," Abrams says. "He is asking Palestinians to be realistic, but that's advice his own government has rejected in six years of hostility toward Israel's government."
The interview was noteworthy on several other points. Asked about Sunni states' fear that the United States is letting Iran run amok, the president lamely responded that at the Gulf Summit "what I wanted to emphasize, because I think there's been concerns in the region about Iran's destabilizing activities, is that even if we get a deal on the nuclear issue we are still concerned with some of those activities by not only Iran and the Quds Force and the IRGC [Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps], but also proxies like Hezbollah." No wonder our allies are freaked out. What the heck does "still concerned" amount to? He does not even bother to expressly condemn Iran's actions.
In addition, his response to the interviewer's incredulity about an Iran deal in which key terms will sunset is telling:
Q On the deal with Iran, some say it's a political gamble to have this deal because 10 to 15 years is a short period. And if they're going to use this money from the sanction relief to better the life of the Iranian people, it's kind of a wishful strategy. How do you respond to that?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I don't think it's a wishful strategy. The sanctions that we've imposed have been a brutal imposition of costs on Iran. So when they receive money, they're going to have to do things just to shore up their economy, which has collapsed drastically during the course of my administration and the international sanctions that we've imposed.
So what is true is that we cannot simply trust the Iranians to abide by a deal. It has to be verifiable. And so part of what we did during this summit was to lay out the unprecedented steps to verify and inspect and monitor nuclear activity inside of Iran. And under the framework that we are now trying to memorialize, Iran would be subject to the kinds of inspections that have never been put in place before.
So we are confident that we can cut off the four pathways to Iran getting a nuclear weapon. And that verification process doesn't extend simply 10 years, or 15 years; it extends for a very, very long period of time.
The first phase -- for 10 years -- they would be severely restricted in their activities around any kind of nuclear power. In the subsequent decade, they would still be under the inspections regime that we are discussing, but they would be able to do more around peaceful nuclear power. And so they would have to, essentially, earn -- re-earn the trust of the international community around these issues.
The alternative is to not have any idea what's taking place inside of Iran. And that, I think, is a much more dangerous situation for everyone in the region.
Actually, the alternative is to make Iran give up its nuclear architecture so that after 10 years when the Iranians will no longer be "severely restricted in their activities around any kind of nuclear power," Iran won't have the infrastructure in place to build an industrial-sized nuclear weapons program.
Finally, his denial about his own role in allowing the Syrian civil war to drag on is stunning, even for him. He insists, "If the United States simply sent in troops into Syria -- our military is very effective, and for a short period of time, we potentially could come down on the side of the opposition against [Syrian President Bashar al-]Assad. But in terms of governance, in terms of keeping the peace, in terms of working through some of the sectarian issues that have plagued that country as well as the region for such a long time, those would still be there." Well, now, that is true. But for years he did nothing to assist the Free Syrian Army and, of course, he backed down from his own red line. Obama had every opportunity to foreclose the potential for mass killing; he chose not to.
One does not expect the president to confess his failures while in office, let alone to a foreign news outlet. But the degree to which he omits himself from events under his watch is, well, mind-blowing. Even more frightful is the degree to which he invests in the unsupportable notion that there will be a time Iran will not have a "severely restricted" nuclear program.
#1
Uh, because Israel is filled with perfidious Juice and there is power and influence to be gained by allying with the various parties who are trying to destroy them?
#2
He's not too keen on African nations who's predominate religion is fundamental Christianity either. However, in the great game of RISK, those are of more interest to the Chinese player rather than his buds who want the Middle East territory.
#3
"If you’re asking why not provide a formal treaty [with the GCC,] the truth of the matter is, is that the treaty process is very cumbersome, requires congressional approval, and it’s not necessary in this situation in order for us to be able to accomplish the goals that we wanted to meet."
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
One key sentence in President Barack Obama's press conference at Camp David last week clearly illustrates the gulf between Washington and its allies on the Arabian Peninsula when it comes to Iran.
George Galloway
Well, this takes the cake. After nearly seven years of haranguing Israel and blaming the Jewish state for the failed "peace process" -- not to mention threatening to leave Israel unprotected at the United Nations -- President Obama confesses to Al Arabiya that there will be no peace so long as the Palestinians won't recognize the Jewish state. Exactly as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said -- and was vilified by the administration for daring to acknowledge the obvious.
