"The UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan on Thursday issued a statement saying the case is a 'possible misuse of the judicial process' that does not 'serve the cause of justice.'"
-- from the article above

This is not quite the same thing as "the U.N." itself urging a review of the sentence.

Posted by: Hugh at January 25, 2008 6:49 PM

Or even:

The UN is firmly against this clear violation of human rights and demands that the Afghan government takles firm and decisive action against this violation or face punishment from the International Community who are all united against human rights abuse such as this.

Oh sorry, I'm forgetting myself. Such attituides ONLY apply to Israel.

I whole-heartedly apologise for this silly oversight.

What on earth was I thinking?

Posted by: Lionheart at January 25, 2008 6:57 PM

From the current Afghan Constitution, under the Amendments Section (you know, the section where the right to free speech and a separation of Church and State should be...):

"Article One Hundred and forty nine:
Ch. 10, Art. 1

The provisions of adherence to the fundamentals of the sacred religion of Islam and the regime of the Islamic Republic cannot be amended.

The amendment of the fundamental rights of the people are permitted only in order to make them more effective."

Did you catch that??? The fundamentals of Islam CANNOT be Amended!!!

In other words, the Afghan government, in one deft swoop, has guaranteed that Sharia Law will supersede the Constitution's set of core provisions, and just to make sure that no one amends their Amendment, they made it non-amendable...

Yup, that's some crafty legislation...

So, unless the U.N. has the stomach to forcibly remove the Sharia Amendment from Afghanistan's Constitution and replace it with a Freedom of Speech and Religion Amendment, we can expect many more such instances of human rights violations in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan....

Cheers,

Doctor Bulldog

Posted by: Doctor Bulldog at January 25, 2008 7:06 PM

This might sound inane and imebcilic, but who were the judges who handed down in the sentence affiliated with? I mean, the articles so far have not given any indication of whether or not the judges were remnants of the taliban that managed to reclaim parts of the north, part of the "moderate" Northern Alliance that plays the part of Fatah to the Taliban's Hamas. I was just interested in the matter; in Afghanistan politics are such an ugly mess it's hard to determine wich authority figures represent with political interests.

I also suspect the race and religion of Sayed Parvez has something to do with it. From the pictures I've seen of him, he looks to be a member of the Hazara Shia community. Obviously I can't confirm this, but that would explain in part the outrageous ruling; the judges were likely Pashtun or Tajik jihadis wiht innate prejudices agaisnt the Shia/Ismaili Hazara. With their advanced views on women, Westerners, and perhaps most of all their interest in pre-Islamic heritage-it was the Hazara who fought especially hard to keep the Taliban from demolitioning the Buddha statues in Bamiyan province, where they were buthcered en mass as a result. This is one of those deeply inherent hatreds which of course we knew was not going to go away by bringing on "democracy". The Sunni Jihadis of the Norhtern Alliance and Taliban would for sure pounce on even the most far fetched chance to rid themselves of an intellectual, and effectively a kaffir, like those of the Shia Hazara and Ismailis.

Of course, the democracy advocates will continue to argue that all this means is that democratization takes time, and we can't expect them to become completely liberal and modenrized over the course of a few years after the long rule by the Tlaiban. That, of course, would be just like trying to domesticate wild animals over the course of a few weeks. They'll look at this and say we still need more patience in bringing the Afghanis towards Western standards of democracy.

Of course, Afghanistan was never a country based on national solidarity to begin with, as is the case with Nigeria, Pakistan, Indonesia, Sudan and most other muslim nations. Just like in iraq we should be encouraging separatist desires of Kurds and Christians, in Afghanistan we should be doing the same for the Shia Hazara, Ismaili Tajiks in the far north and hell, given how much they've endured, an entirely separate state for Afghani women, where they can be compeltely free of Islamaniacs beating them for exposing a wrist or ankle. That would actually be kind of neat now that I think about it-the first state of its kinddesgined to gaurantee women protection from islamic fundamentalists. You know the women there would go crazy over an idea like that. Then, the "Afghanis" who really want democracy on the march will get it, the Pashtun and Northern jihadis continue to rot in Sharia, Afghanistan is broken up, India doesn't have ot worry about a unified fundamentalist State there any more and everyone is happier.

Posted by: maxwell46&2 at January 25, 2008 7:13 PM

I'd argue for the breakup of Pakistan, too (of course minding the nukes). If the sub-countries (which would still be large) are run by people loyal to their tribe, corruption and radical Islam just might be less effective.

Just dreaming, of course. A breakup might also call the new statelets to war against each other, in which case the nukes could cause havoc.

Posted by: Henrik at January 25, 2008 7:33 PM

The moment they declared 'democracy under the sharia' this whole thing went down the gurgler.

Ever since that day the waste of men, money and materiel, all the fantastic projects like building schools & hospitals, dams and even mosques, turned into complete and utter folly.

Once we pull out it will be as if it never happened. All that will remain is Islamic rubble, a giant black hole for insane amounts of taxpayers money, wasted to establish sandcastles.

OT: the soldiers of Allah came out with a new playbook:

How to cope with the dhimmy press & public:

INFORMATION GUIDE FOR MUSLIM COMMUNITIES IN
DEALING WITH ANTI-TERRORISM RAIDS/ARRESTS

1. Make clear on whose behalf the statement is being issued.
2. Set out the Islamic perspective on acts of violence which results
in damage or loss of lives of innocent civilians and property.
3. Set out the local Muslim immediate response to the events e.g.
shock, sadness etc.
4. Set out that investigation has just commenced and ask for
media and public to await the outcome of the investigation once
it has been completed and not to rush to conclusions.
5. Set out that individuals are innocent until proven guilty in a
court of law.
6. Ask for understanding and co-operation by the media in not
adopting language that will stereotype the rest of the Muslim
community and spread fear and misunderstanding in the wider
community.
7. Throughout your statement avoid the use of language such as
‘Islamic terrorists’, ‘Muslim terrorists’, ‘jihad’ etc but emphasise
that individuals have been arrested accused of criminal
activities and if found guilty will be sanctioned by the Criminal
Justice system of the country accordingly.

http://sheikyermami.com/2008/01/25/australia-labor-will-restore-faith-in-terror-laws/

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at January 25, 2008 7:44 PM

The Jihaad is real.

The trillionair sheiks pay the mullas to run the brainwashing Madrassahs to teach as many lower class and poorer middle class moslem males that to die for allah is the greatest accomplishment. They are trained from as young an age as possible...and sent out to suicide bomb for allah all over the world ...and to fight the jihaad which the trillionaire sheiks want to eliminate as many young moslem males as possible ...in order to create the greatest number of single moslem women to fill their huge harems and the huge harems of their many sons and grandsons.....a gigantic number.
The sheiks send out harem recruiters to scout for the most and best moslem females for their vast harems. These recruiters are paid well if they succeed. Also sometimes the women are drugged and brainwashed to believe they should be in harems.

That is the root cause of the jihaad.

The questions is...how do we shut down all the hate-kill brainwashing Madrassahs?
Perhaps only a one world government would have such power to do that...eh?
New world order?
But one with a good and careing government which benefits everyone.
Can humanity accomplish that?
I like to think so.

Or else...maybe if this message goes all around this planet..somehow it could get real loud to the extent that it might possibly reach the ears and eyes of the unfortunate madrassah boys...maybe opening their eyes to what how and why they are being destroyed...so that the wealthy sheiks can put their potential brides into their huge harems.
Then perhaps they will opt out of jihaadism...just perhaps...

Posted by: Balagooon at January 25, 2008 7:52 PM

TO Henrik:

"A breakup might also call the new statelets to war against each other, in which case the nukes could cause havoc."

Perhaps, but it may ultiamtely either that or they direct them at us. For a country as infected with fundamentalist islam as Pakiland, the danger of a gigantic, nuclear stat eready to self destruct in its war agianst India, Europe and America is just so gigantic. Besides, a divided Pakiland would consist of new nations, like Balochistan, Sindh and Balawaristan, that would be highly anti-jihadi in nature, able and willing to modernize and focused on recovering from their rule by Pakis, kind of like what East TImor has had to do follwing freedom from Indonesia. Balochistan especially has become the South Asian Darfour, with non-muslims and muslim secularists facing extemrination. Hence, it should be treated the same Darofur should be, but isn't, treated-with intervention designed to get them autonomy and security. And this goes for almost all Muslim nations-Pakiland, Malaysia, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Algeria, Nigeria, Morocco, Libya, Syria and the Sudan. All them are fake, poorly concepted creations the west retardedly allowed to be form, resulting in religous and cultural minorities facing neglect, abuse and extermination. They were all screw-ups, if only there was a concrete way we could go about unscrewing them up.

Posted by: maxwell46&2 at January 25, 2008 8:00 PM

Mazar-e-Sharif and handed the death penalty in a closed session without any legal counsel.

.. dubya'Islam is Peace' is anti-first ammendment. But, why would dubya care? he parrots what his masters in Riyadh as him to: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010917-11.html

Besides, what does it matter, as long as you have votes in one pocket and money in another? Some pesos in the back-pocket won't hurt either.

Posted by: Alert at January 25, 2008 8:04 PM

Uh, 'scuse me for suggesting this, but...ALL Islamic polygamy needs to be outlawed. ALL. Not only is it emotionally and psychologically horrific for females, but the resultant demographics are a clear and present danger to the rest of the world. Duh.

Barbaric.

Posted by: darcy at January 25, 2008 8:15 PM

Ch 10, Article one is the

REPUGNANCY CLAUSE that gave the mullahs hegemony over the Afghan jirga, and it was brought to the people of Afghanistan by "The Snake" — Zalmay Khalilizad, the Afghan who is now the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Literally, when this clause was being debated (if you can call it that) the U.S. State department said, quite literally, what does it matter since 99% of the country is Muslim???

Well, it matters because the Muslims there, smashed by the Taleban, NEED HUMAN RIGHTS, TOO.

Especially the women.

And when some guy can't even ask an obvious question about obvious inequalities, there's a real problem.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at January 25, 2008 8:15 PM

I think this touches on a main and indeed fundamental tool in the recruitment to the islamist/jihadist cause - sex.

It is the main selling point that runs all the way through this ideology upto and including death with the reward of the 72 virgins.

Wo betide anyone who touches on the raw nerve of islamist/jihadist recruitment and dare question their well oiled methods.

Posted by: Ken CleanAirSystem at January 25, 2008 8:17 PM

From the article:

[N]o lawyer, journalist, or human rights representatives were permitted entry to the court during Kambakhsh’s trail. (sic)

The journalist simply asked why women do not have the same right as men to marry, and is sentenced to death in a closed-door trial with no representation.

This is the glorious "democracy" we have created for the Afghans. Pearls before swine.

And the emetic United League of Nations meekly mews that his murder may not "serve the cause of justice". Disgusting, sickening, revolting.

Posted by: special_guest at January 25, 2008 8:31 PM

It really should be obvious by now that Sharia law cannot coexist with Western civilization and it ought to be equally obvious that the segregation of one from the other is impossible. Therefore conflict is inevitable.

The question is: Just how much intestinal fortitude does the West have for the very dirty business it faces in defending itself against an enemy that has proven it has an infinite amount of intestinal fortitude when it comes to very dirty business?

Posted by: USBeast at January 25, 2008 8:57 PM

Politics is show business. There are endless proves for it. Just two days ago Hamas made a show by holding parliament meeting with candle light in day time. The UN put up similar shams numerous times in the past, and nothing can prevent it from making more.

If you know the UN has authority over your justice system, why should you believe it could make a difference in justice system of Afghanistan? Has anyone heard a nation barking at others, telling them not to interfere with its domestic issues?

Show business is good business.

Posted by: ssa at January 25, 2008 9:01 PM

Islam is an anti-Universal Declaration of Human Rights movement dedicated to establishing a global theocratic tyranny.

What's to "review"?

Posted by: profitsbeard at January 25, 2008 9:22 PM

"The three-judge panel sentenced Sayad Parwez Kambaksh to death for distributing a paper that humiliated Islam..."

Gee whiz, it doesn't take much, does it? Shouldn't we use this humiliation against those who are so sensitive and easily humiliated? I'd hate to think the west ever threw in the towel for such a pathetic group of immature, whining barbarians. Truly, they embarrass themselves.

Honestly, I don't know what we are so afraid of. One strong breath of resolve against their empty and make believe answers to man's problems and we could take our world back.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at January 25, 2008 9:24 PM

SSA, no business is good business when those who seek the truth are murdered for doing so.

The UN was a noble idea that has degenerated into a mockery of its reason d'etre. As far as "World Peace" is concerned, it is a nonentity.

Posted by: USBeast at January 25, 2008 9:28 PM

Please check-out my just-penned article calling the confluence of taqiyya in this-weeks Western-facing events- into a re-examination of the global credibility of Muslim-source 'facts.'

http://www.DemocracyBroadcasting.Blogspot.Com

Posted by: DemoCast at January 25, 2008 9:28 PM

The UN doesn't get the point. They are focussing on the "misuse of the judicial system" and that the defendant was denied legal counsel.

It doesn't matter whether Sayed downloaded, distributed or even wrote the damn thing. The point is that executing people for criticizing religion is wrong. Period.

What a bunch of idiots that someone would have to point this out to them!!

Posted by: Jimmy the Dhimmi at January 25, 2008 10:01 PM

Re: The article allegedly questioned why men are allowed to have four spouses in Islam while women are denied the same right.

Because if women have the same right the reality of their breeder status in Islam goes poof.

Posted by: Frank at January 25, 2008 10:01 PM

This guy couldn't have chosen a more volatile topic to question. The clerics, "scholars", and males of islam know that if women ever break free of islam's shackles, the game is over. The subjugation of women in islam is imperative; otherwise, the house of cards will collapse. Islamic males will never voluntarily relinquish their positions of lords and masters. If they didn't have women to abuse and feel superior to, they would be nothing since they're already slaves to allah. Allah made them superior to women and by God, they intend to keep it that way. Of course, they believe they're superior to not only women, but to all non-muslims as well. They will execute as many reformers and doubters that it takes to protect their islamic rights.

If muslim women revolted en masse, they could topple the islamic farce. But most of them buy into the belief that they are "free" and accept the role allah so generously bestowed upon them. Fools they are. Somebody must stop this travesty of islamic "justice".

Posted by: Susanp at January 25, 2008 10:31 PM

The UN was a noble idea that has degenerated into a mockery of its reason d'etre. As far as "World Peace" is concerned, it is a nonentity.
Posted by: USBeast

I hear you.
I am sure that you and I have heard the clause, "The UN was a noble idea," probably from when we were at the school play ground. Doesn't that sound so stale?
It's funny that it was a noble idea--yes, until it actual comes to existence.

If you remember, President Truman prohibited General McArthur to finish the North Korean War, you should remember that it was soon after the UN came to existence, which also was the reason why Truman held McArthur back from seizing victory.

Why?

Eh, it's depressing to say, but here is the fact that was disclosed after the fall of USSR:

Ready?

President Truman was dissuaded by three British Diplomats appointed to the UN, and they told him of the false potential nuclear war with the USSR. These three diplomats were discovered to have been KGB agents after the Cold War.

Had it not for the creation of the UN, the Whitehouse would not have been infiltrated so easily. As of today, infiltration is pervasive in every part of high government offices. Now, that's more than depressing.

What should we do? We missed the bus so we have no choice but to join the European caravans to dhimmitude.

Posted by: ssa at January 25, 2008 11:50 PM

Hmmm... your tax dollars at work.

Nice.

Posted by: Kay at January 26, 2008 1:29 AM

The problem is that the UN will do what it does best, provide a lot of talk and no action.
http://farleftwatch.wordpress.com

Posted by: redandwhitestripes at January 26, 2008 1:52 AM

“possible misuse of the judicial process” that does not “serve the cause of justice.”...

A “possible" misuse of the judicial process that does not “serve the cause of justice? "possible?"

Posted by: rational at January 26, 2008 1:57 AM

By the way, one of the best descriptions of polygamy - how it harms society, how it destroys marriage, how it kills friendship between women, is in the book, "Now they call me Infidel" by Nonie Darwish.

Very disturbing read.

Posted by: Kay at January 26, 2008 2:07 AM

May I point you all at -

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/10/f15e0422-b138-435d-8417-98d3ba33fd26.html

-where I hope that you will note this quote, from the final paragraph, in particular -

"A problem that exists in Afghanistan is the lack of an ethical code of conduct that exists in other countries."

How true; how very, very true, also, of most Muslim countries of course. In very fact, as we are slowly finding out, how very true of many Muslims who, seemingly, have no recognisable ethical code of conduct and when challenged simply fall back on the barbaric and discredited precepts of Sharia - a violent, disgusting and simplistic system more suited to the vile impulses of our species than to its finer parts.

Of course, we witness the same type of behaviour amongst those peoples of Eastern Europe - Romanian and Bulgarian peoples in particular, but not excluding the others, who have had the moral compass destroyed by the long, dark years of immoral and amoral, crapulous Communism.

Confronted with the new wealth - relative, I grant you - they are incapable of reforming their survivalist impulses to match it. They are incapable of sloughing off the concept of forte main, of grabbing that which is directly in front of them and pocketing it, because their morality, their sense of self and other has been completely destroyed by a system which placed no value upon either and has left them incapable of making rational value judgements.

Islam, and its precepts, is in no way dissimilar to the vulgar appetites of Communism. It glorifies loyalty to a central cause; it negates, perjures and dismisses any human emotion toward forgivness and fellow feeling in favour of the betrayal of friends and family who may fall short in adherence to the system; it lays down absolute rules which may not be varied; it extolls a community - the Ummah (the Party) - above all else; it places power in the hands of a self-selecting elite; it reduces individual thoughts, experiences, morality, philosophy and kindness to a rote system of obligation based on rules wherein a certain charitable (?) level satisfies a certain harsh God and nothing further can be required.

Islam is paucity. Paucity of human experience; paucity of human charity; paucity of human kindness; paucity of, not to put too fine a point on it, of humanity itself. It is not possible that we humans can be reduced to a system of rules - as laid down in the Koran - that can guarantee our passage into paradise no matter what may be in our heart. Saracen's postings, elsewhere on this website, indicate just how deeply this rule based approach to morality has taken hold - exactly as in Communist (former and current) countries it has. He (she?) sees only the rules and not the underlying impetus and reveals, in his (her) many posts, the adherence to rules. He, or she, sees only the verses of peace and simply refuses to address the verses of war. He, or she, seems incapable of thinking beyond, outwith, the book - of drawing a morality independent of scripture and then incorporating scripture, if he or she wants to, back into that independently derived morality.

So, how can it possibly surprise anyone here that a court in Afghanistan took a Sharia rule-based approach to journalism. That is all that they, Muslims, know how to do for centuries of Islam has destroyed the moral compass of Muslims - it is not possible for them to think beyond, outwith perhaps, the book or the rules. They do not have, do not possess, a moral compass which can be justified from many sources, from many thoughts, from many philosophies. They are discouraged from independent thought and from using their own experience to formulate new thoughts and new, sometimes, in our society, short-lived (but valid for that short lifetime) rules.

Islam has destroyed the moral centre of the very people who believed it would give them a vibrant moral centre. Islam has become, as this case clearly demonstrates, a violent, sex-obsessed, highly sexualised death-cult. I have been deeply disgusted over recent months in watching the crowds that cluster round executions in the Islamic countries - disgusted to note, as others have, the number of males in the crowds watching these executions who are obviously in a state of heightened sexual awareness. Equally, I have been disgusted to note the number of violent attacks against women which occur immediately after such public executions. There can be no question but that we are watching a deeply primitive mind-set at work - entire peoples whose personal moralities have been completely destroyed by Islam.

We in the West have no need to give this morally deficient system, this primitive highly sexualised and highly supremacist, system any kudos whatsoever. We know, and most journalists know, that there is always more than one version of the truth. Why, therefore, do we have truck with any government, any system of law, which says that there is only one truth.

What rubbish that is! Truth depends upon, as we and any half decent reporter knows, the time and the place at which you stand to make your observations. Poor simple Sharia and its stupid contention that there is only one truth. The problem with Islam, with Sharia law, is that neither have got to grips with the fact that there are many conflicting God-given truths and equally as many logic derived man-given truths. For the Muslim, God is simple (idiots!), but for the rest of us, thank God, God is deeply complex and complicated - much greater and vastly more complex than mankind's understanding of It (Him/Her).

It is inconceivable to the enlightened Western mind that the Koran, that Islam, can be anything other than the tiniest preamble to the pre-script to the dedication of the introduction to the preliminary investigation of the possibility of the mind of God - exactly as the intelligent man or woman treats any other so-called scripture - and that is still placing too high a value upon our pathetic attempts. That Islam, and Muslims, have the hubris to claim that they, and they alone, have the final word of God is nothing more than an insult to us and to God. (Logically, God, being omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent can never be finalised - to claim otherwise is blasphemy).

To claim that God cannot defend himself (herself, itself) without your help and that therefore you you have to kill a journalist who advances a putatively different truth - well, that must be blasphemy; but surely of a much higher order than the simple blasphemy I advanced at the end of my last paragraph. Super-blasphemy, I suppose; extra added value, buy-one-get-one-free blasphemy; adopt this blasphemy and go straight to hell and do not pass go and do not collect two-hundred pounds type of blasphemy. So, if the jounalist blasphemes and your response is also a blasphemy??? Cripes! This is just stupid, isn't it?

Well, that's Islam for you!

Oliver.

Posted by: OliverPCamford at January 26, 2008 2:15 AM

Well, that's Islam for you!

Oliver.

Posted by: OliverPCamford at January 26, 2008 2:15 AM

Absolutely beautiful, OliverPCamford! You described islam and muslims perfectly and it's a crying, pathetic shame that they and their useful idiots cannot see the truth in your words. Someday the useful idiots will see it but the muslims probably never will. They're "the best of people", NOT!

Posted by: Susanp at January 26, 2008 10:53 PM

"The UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan on Thursday issued a statement saying the case is a “possible misuse of the judicial process” that does not “serve the cause of justice.”... "
-----------------------------

Gee! Ya think?

A note to OliverPCamford regarding
"A problem that exists in Afghanistan is the lack of an ethical code of conduct that exists in other countries."
and
"They are incapable of sloughing off the concept of forte main, of grabbing that which is directly in front of them and pocketing it, because their morality, their sense of self and other has been completely destroyed by a system which placed no value upon either and has left them incapable of making rational value judgements."

Have you read this article by Bill Whittle?
http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/2007_05.html

Check out his analysis of the Prisoner's Dilemma.
Perhaps it's not a "destroyed sense of self", maybe their system is based on the "screw the other guy" game tactic he refers to. He comments that "In societies where short term values trump long-term ones, it is easy, safe and stable to Screw the Other Guy. But in the long-term, nothing of consequence grows, because nice, forgiving and non-envious are advanced strategies that require a topsoil of general goodwill, trust, and respect for the rule of law." Now, the real question is, how do you re-set a "screw the other guy" society to the "tit-for-tat" model???

Posted by: A_Nonny_Mouse at January 27, 2008 6:23 AM

a nonny mouse

great link!

It does look as though Islam is based, at bottom, on the 'screw the other guy' game plan. In the short term - when they first encounter civilised 'Agreement-Based' societies - they make out like gangbusters.

But once their co-operative, creative opponents 'get the message' and wise up to the cheating -- BOOOM.

The Knights Hospitallers of St John, or the Sikhs in India, or the Haganah which became the IDF, are what happens, eventually, when Co-Operative Agreement-Based societies encounter a marauding mob of the 'Screw the Other Guy' practitioners.

Those who won't 'do as you would be done by' then cop a solid dose of 'be done by as you did'.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at January 27, 2008 5:58 PM

Some interesting aspects of the Kaambakhsh case from an AP article from a few days ago--Jean MacKenzie, director for the Institute for War and Peace reporting, which helps train Afghan journalists, claims that the journalist is being punished for stories written for the institute by his brother, Sayed Yaqub Ibrahimi, critical of local warlords involved in murders and kidnappings.

According to this source, the "offending" article was not even something that Kaambakhsh wrote himself, but an Iranian article originally written in Farsi, run off the internet.

Of course, if these allegations are true, then this is an even greater miscarriage of justice for this poor journalist.

It does not address the main issue, though--whoever wrote the article, and whatever the actual link to Mr. Kaambakhsh, the idea that one can be prosecuted under Afghan law--even sentenced to death--for "insulting" Muhammed and questioning the tenets of Shari'ah law.

More from the article: Qayoum Baabak, editor of the Jahan-e-Naw newspaper in Mazar, where Kaambakhsh works, said the local prosecutor, Hafiz Khaliqyar, warned journalists at a recent news conference that they would be punished if they supported Kaambakhsh.

Not exactly the glories of democracy and the flourishing of a free press we were hoping for.

Posted by: gravenimage at January 29, 2008 9:27 PM