READ about Piers Morgan's long career in journalism here.
Whether you fell asleep early, stayed out too late, or simply want to watch it again, we realize it's not always possible to get your entire "Piers Morgan Live" fix from television. As an answer to this, we offer the below labor of love – "Piers Morgan Live, Rewind" – dedicated and designed to getting you caught up and connected to the conversation.
The motive behind Hannah Anderson’s kidnapping remains under investigation, and is becoming increasingly befuddled with the uncovering of compelling details since her rescue last Sunday. On Thursday, “Piers Morgan Live” invited a pair of psychology experts to share their insights on why this abduction occurred, why it developed in the way that it did, and where the Anderson's go from here.
Dr. Rebecca Bailey, the therapist to kidnapping survivor Jaycee Dugard, explained the role parents play in preventing surprise attacks on their children:
“There is so much attention on the idea of the 'stranger abduction.' But we know statistically that abductions are highly more likely with family members," explained the PhD and author of “Safe Kids, Smart Parents.” "This is the takeaway from this, sadly, that we do really need to pay attention to some of the people in our kids' lives and try to understand their intentions.”
While being careful to clarify that suspect James Dimaggio is fully responsible for this incident, Bailey also insisted families shouldn't underestimate the benefit of keeping a close eye on their children’s social lives as a measure to monitor potential threats.
Meanwhile, chemical and forensic psychologist Dr. Judy Ho weighed in on how Anderson seems to be dealing with the trauma and what she can expect in her recovery:
“I think there's a big part of families who have been traumatized to try to normalize everything and try to bring everything back to a stable point. But there needs to be some type of processing," she told Piers Morgan. "I think the online venue may not have been the best way because that can bring her up to further criticism, a lot of questions she might not be prepared to handle. But I do think that there should be some type processing going on perhaps with a trusted professional, maybe with family friends who really lean on each other and not to ignore that this happened.”
On Thursday, all eyes were on the Obama Administration as Barack Obama responded boldy to the violence in Egypt. On the heels of the president's remarks, “Piers Morgan Live” invited a panel of foreign affairs experts to share what they believe would be the proper answer to the question of aiding our Arab allies.
General Wesley Clark told Piers Morgan that a cautious route would best serve the situation:
“I think the proper course of action is to be very, very steady. Do not break relations with the Egyptian military. We don't like what happened. If we can work with both sides and pull them away from this confrontation that's looming or will intensify, that's what we need to be doing," said the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander. "The Egyptian military is doing what they think they have to do to keep Egypt as a modern country. They are responding to the will of the Egyptian people. They went overboard, somehow, the police, I don't know how all these people got killed. That's a big failure in somebody's procedures.”
And that advice comes from a seasoned veteran in relations with the Middle East:
“We went through this exact scenario with the shah of Iran. We didn't like him. He wasn't democratic enough. His secret police were really tough and they tortured people, and so we encouraged the emergence of a democratic movement. The generals tried to warn the Americans, they said be careful, you're playing with fire and you're going to let Ayatollah Khomeini come back in," said Clark. "We sent in an American general over to tell the Iranian generals back off. So for about 60 days we kept the military from intervening in Iran. During that period, the revolution coalesced, the military forces fell apart, extreme Islamists took over.”
The take away lesson, Clark says, is “of course we want democracy. We don't want slaughter in the streets. But this is Egypt's problem. They know it better than we do. The military has been influenced by the United States. They are westernized. We should encourage the military to work with the police, minimize the violence, try to move this towards an inclusive democratic government.”
CNN Senior International Correspondent Ivan Watson, meanwhile, sees Egypt’s future with less optimism, arguing that the goal of democracy no longer serves inspires the Egyptian people:
“Two and a half years ago there was the excitement and the enthusiasm about - and hope for a democratic process, and that has been killed now, and we have hundreds and hundreds of dead people and their blood on top of that," Watson told Morgan. "You can't promise now to Egyptian people to wave a wand and have democratic elections now and that will make everything better because the people who won those elections are some of the people who are being butchered in the streets and perhaps some of them are also carrying out reprisal attacks.”
“Instead,” Watson argued, “we have a much bigger crisis in our hands. How do we stop this cycle of violence? And if the security forces use force against these possible marches that the Muslim Brotherhood is calling upon on Friday, that could continue this already terrible and tragic loss of life where you have bodies stacked up in the mosques.”
Analyst Robin Wright feels strongly that the present situation is vastly different from those in the past:
"I don't think there's any comparison between what happened in Iran and Egypt for many different reasons," she began. "But the stakes are enormous here and there are no easy outs."