Saturday, May 28, 2011

Clinton Gets cold reception in Pakistan

Hillary politico has pleaded with Pakistan to verify "decisive measures" against Islamic militants mass the modification of containerful Laden, but his communication was nervelessly conventional in a land that sees itself as the bounds in the fisticuffs against extremists.

America always has strange bed fellows that it calls it's allies . While our nation has called for sanctions  against Iran for it's development of nuclear arms /power . Our Nation was strangely silent when it came to Pakistan . Sure it's OK for a rouge nation run by a 'dictator' to be our ally , and harbor Bin Laden . The United States believes that at least a dozen senior leaders of al Qaeda are in Pakistan-
YES, Uncle Sam believes still in giving away billions of Tax payer dollars to Pakistan , with out offending them ( our allies )  . YES Pakistan has Nuclear Weapons . Surprises  me that NO PAKISTANI NUKE has ended up in one of American cities . The predictability of Pakistan exploding is vary high . Who knows why Obama took covert action to take out Bin Laden. With all the connections , and WIKI leaks about Pakistani / government  and it's connection to extremists . Those people just love 'us'.So Mrs. Clinton goes on pleading with the enemy .

ISLAMABAD -- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton beseeched Pakistan to take "decisive steps" against Islamist militants in the wake of Osama bin Laden's death, at what she called a turning point for the fraying alliance's effort to fight terrorism and bring stability to Afghanistan.
But her message was greeted coolly in a country that was angered by the bin Laden raid and sees itself as stretched to the limit in fighting extremists that have sown terror within Pakistan.
Officials on both sides say relations are at the lowest point since before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The visit laid bare the growing divergence between the allies, who share the broader goal of countering Islamist militancy and stabilizing Afghanistan, but often differ on who and what groups constitute an enemy.
Mrs. Clinton was joined in a tense, daylong sweep through Islamabad by Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The two were the most senior American officials to visit the country since the May 2 U.S. raid that killed bin Laden and set off a wave of Pakistani anger at the U.S.
The dispatching of such a high-level duo signaled the importance placed by Washington on repairing the relationship in order to help sustain the momentum from bin Laden's death. Both officials praised Pakistan's efforts and noted the sacrifices it has made, losing thousands of its own civilians to terrorist attacks in recent years.
But the tension was clear at the start of the first meeting of the day, with Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari. There were few of the smiles and warm handshakes that usually open such sitdowns, and reporters were soon shooed out of the room.
President Zardari's office said the two sides agreed to work together against "high-value targets in Pakistan," and to promote peace in Afghanistan.
A senior Pakistani official with knowledge of the talks described them as "better than not talking."
Mrs. Clinton and Adm. Mullen also met military chief Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, who in practice wields more power than Pakistan's elected leaders. The chief of Pakistan's main spy agency, Lt. Gen. Shuja Ahmad Pasha, attended.
U.S. officials accuse the spy agency, Inter-Services Intelligence, of aiding the Afghan Taliban and other militant groups to maintain Pakistan's influence in Afghanistan and for use against rival India. Pakistani officials insist they have cut their ties with militant groups.
Both Mrs. Clinton and Adm. Mullen were blunt in their comments to reporters after the meetings, appearing at the American Embassy without any Pakistani officials. Adm. Mullen described the talks as "candid."
"We have reached a turning point. Osama bin Laden is dead but al Qaeda and its syndicate of terror remain a threat to us both," Mrs. Clinton said. "We both recognize that there is still much more work required and it is urgent."
American officials say their priority now is to work with Islamabad to see more aggressive action taken against the Pakistan-based militant groups that are destabilizing Afghanistan.
Mrs. Clinton said Pakistan had agreed to take "some very specific actions" on its own and with the U.S. in the coming days. She didn't provide details.
A senior U.S. official involved in Mrs. Clinton's outreach effort said the trip was constructive, and that Pakistan has already delivered on some of the things that the U.S. has asked for since bin Laden's death -- including granting the Central Intelligence Agency access on Friday to his compound in Abbottobad to scour for clues.
But the proof will come in Pakistani action, the official said. "You might see a lot of activity by the Pakistanis, but it's unclear if that will lead to serious operations."
There is little disagreement between the U.S. and Pakistan on the threat posed by al Qaeda. But Islamabad says it is focusing out of necessity on fighting the Pakistan Taliban, which has launched a series of bloody revenge attacks in Pakistan the weeks since the al Qaeda leader's death
With those attacks Pakistan has also faced almost all of the fallout from the bin Laden raid.
Mrs. Clinton noted the attacks and praised what she called Pakistan's "tremendous" commitment to battling militancy. She also stressed that Washington doesn't suspect senior Pakistani officials knew of bin Laden's presence in Pakistan, and that Pakistan's leaders were also eager to find if any of their people helped shield him.
The raid that killed bin Laden, launched without Pakistan's knowledge, was widely viewed here as a violation of the country's sovereignty, and suggestions from U.S. officials that bin Laden may have been shielded by Pakistani soldiers or spies have only deepened the resentment.
Pakistani officials have indignantly denied bin Laden was given safe harbor. They point out that their security forces have captured many senior al Qaeda leaders and a third of Pakistan's army is deployed in the country's northwest to fight the Pakistan Taliban, an offshot of the Afghan insurgency.
A series of bloody offensives against the Taliban in the past two years have left nearly 3,000 Pakistani soldiers dead. Even some U.S. officials acknowledge that Pakistan is militarily stretched to the limit, and it is unrealistic to expect fresh offensives against militant havens in the near future.
The senior Pakistani official said Washington needed to fully understand "the ground realities" in Pakistan, where anti-Americanism is rife. "We have to be mindful of what our people want when we consider what we can do," the official said.
"You can't disregard public opinion," the official said. "You have to carry part of that in your policy."
Mrs. Clinton's trip had been kept secret for security reasons and lasted less than a day. The mission has been in the planning stage for more than two weeks, according to U.S. officials. But the Obama administration wanted to make sure that the visit would result in specific advances in the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban.
Jay Solomon in Washington contributed to this article.


Court sets stage for a California crime wave


I often wonder about the legal system . Release the violent offenders  . Keep the drug users in Prison for life . Justice is truly blind .


The U.S. Supreme Court effectively ordered California on Monday to release 33,000 inmates over two years from an in-state prison population that numbers about 143,000.
Kent Scheidegger of the tough-on-crime Criminal Justice Legal Foundation blogged that Californians shouldn't "bother investing much in a car. It will be open season on cars, given that car thieves (nonviolent offenders) will never go to prison no matter how many times they are caught."
The 5-4 Plata decision upheld a federal three-judge panel that in 2009 found that overcrowding in California prisons is "criminogenic" — likely to produce criminals — and ordered state prisons to run at 137.5 percent of design capacity. The state's prisons are designed to hold 80,000 inmates. (Be it noted, 100 percent capacity means one inmate per cell.)
Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy cited ugly stories of inmates waiting months for needed medical and mental-health treatment — a violation of Eighth Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment. And: "As many as 54 prisoners may share a single toilet." Kennedy argued, "Prisoners retain the essence of human dignity inherent in all persons."
Corrections head Matthew Cate chided the Big Bench for ignoring the many improvements in the system during the past five years. For example, the state has removed about 13,000 out of 20,000 nontraditional or "bad beds" — think large rooms stuffed with bunk beds to warehouse unprocessed inmates. (I don't think Kennedy liked those beds — he included two photos of them with his opinion.)
In his dissenting opinion, Justice Samuel Alito noted that the three-judge panel relied on old statistics and ignored more current (and favorable) data, such as the huge drop in "likely preventable deaths" from 18 in 2006 to 3 in 2007.
The worst part: Kennedy endorsed the three judges' finding that there was "substantial evidence that prison populations can be reduced in a manner that does not increase crime to a significant degree" and that reducing overcrowding "could even improve public safety." Yes, Virginia, a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court thinks Californians might be safer if it cuts the prison population by a quarter.
As Alito argued, his colleagues ignore history. When federal courts made Philadelphia release thousands of inmates in the 1990s, police re-arrested thousands over 18 months, resulting in 1,113 assault charges, 90 rape charges and 79 murder charges.
Justice Antonin Scalia called the decision "the most radical injunction issued by a court in our nation's history." He likened the decision to the granting of 46,000 criminal appeals. Scalia even wondered if Kennedy suggested a five-year time frame to achieve "a marginal reduction in the inevitable murders, robberies and rapes" likely to be committed by released convicts.
Gov. Jerry Brown correctly warned that the Big Bench might issue this ruling as he has tried to sell his plan to transfer about 37,000 state inmates to local jurisdictions. In turn, Kennedy wrote that Brown's proposed transfers — which the Legislature has yet to ratify — support the three judges' view that they can free thousands of inmates without "undue negative effect on public safety."
The ink's barely dry and already they're sharing the credit in preparation for the cruel awakening that will prod them to spread the blame.
Debra J. Saunders is a columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle, 901 Mission St., San Francisco, CA 94103. Send email to


No comments:

Post a Comment