ISIS attack: American doctor Is Shot and Wounded in Pakistan

Thorough Pro said:

RIP to the doctor and scums should be caught, tried in ATC and hanged asap.

Click to expand...

Read properly.

That Guy said:

Except in this case, the military courts set up are using unconventional methods, using secret evidence to convict terrorists.

Click to expand...

How did you reach that conclusion?

That Guy said:

Military law only affect PoWs, court martials, and other military related cases.

Click to expand...

No, they can handle terrorists as well, as we can see the example of what USA did. Besides Prisoners of WAR is a broad term. Aren't we in a state of war? We do happen to be using F-16's, tanks, and 160,000 soldiers.
Besides that is no hard and fast rule. Different countries have different laws relating to military courts. They can surely handle "terrorists"

That Guy said:

Terrorism are stateless and hold no allegiance to any a particular country.

Click to expand...

They happen to have Pakistani Identity Cards. Still stateless? Fact is, they are our own citizens.

That Guy said:

Pakistani (and indeed most international military) military laws don't have the proper code to conduct sessions on such cases.

Click to expand...

Says who?

That Guy said:

I didn't say anywhere that the civilian court wasn't following the law, rather I said the complete opposite.

Click to expand...

But you gave an example of how the military courts are wrong. I just gave you a similar example of how even civil courts can make opposite decisions.

That Guy said:

That is where you're completely wrong. The judiciary has every right to overrule the decision, as the supreme court is the highest court in the country, thus has every right to intervene. Judicial matters in the country (any and all, including military cases) are ultimately under the supreme court's jurisdiction. If it wasn't, then the supreme court would have no reason to exist.

Click to expand...

Your concept about Judiciary is very misinformed. Tell me who writes the law that judiciary follows? Parliament. The judiciary did not write our constitution on which our laws are based. The parliament did. Judiciary can only operate within the boundaries the PEOPLE OF THE NATION set for them. They are not above the constitution and law.

That Guy said:

Ultimately, even the judiciary has watchdogs that keep an eye on it, and it must answer to the parliament, if it takes a step too far out of it's bounds.

Click to expand...

I am glad you agree it must answer to the parliament.

Pathetic and shameful !

SipahSalar said:

How did you reach that conclusion?

Click to expand...

The NAP was specifically made for what I mentioned. These aren't normal military courts.

No, they can handle terrorists as well, as we can see the example of what USA did. Besides Prisoners of WAR is a broad term. Aren't we in a state of war? We do happen to be using F-16's, tanks, and 160,000 soldiers.
Besides that is no hard and fast rule. Different countries have different laws relating to military courts. They can surely handle "terrorists"

Click to expand...

PoW is not a broad term, and it has been defined by the geneva convention already. These aren't technically PoWs, as PoWs have rights that these terrorists don't have, and privilages that these terrorists don't have. If they were PoWs, you can bet that there would be a lot of outcry from the international community

The US had to declare the terrorists they captured as "illegal combatants" instead of "prisoners of war", simply because they didn't fit the PoW definition set by the geneva convention on warfare.

They happen to have Pakistani Identity Cards. Still stateless? Fact is, they are our own citizens.

Click to expand...

Stateless means that they hold no allegiance, not that they don't have any citizenship of certain nations. Every terror group has citizens, stateless is simply a term used to describe those that don't care about their citizenship. Simple example, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan is considered a stateless terrorist outfit, simply because it doesn't recognize borders, or hold allegiance to any nation, even though it's members have Uzbek citizenship.

Says who?

Click to expand...

Not the law, which is exactly my point. The US had to make new laws for these situation after 9/11, Pakistan is still in the process of doing so. The NAP is a part of wider reforms to strengthen anti-terror laws.

But you gave an example of how the military courts are wrong. I just gave you a similar example of how even civil courts can make opposite decisions.

Click to expand...

I didn't say military courts are wrong, I said they can be misused. I also gave you an example of how civil courts deal with differing opinion, by sending the final decision to a higher court. Ultimately, even military courts have to answer to the SC, if military courts step out of line, but that isn't enough, as the SC cannot keep an eye on every decision the military courts make. Military courts need proper oversight.

Your concept about Judiciary is very misinformed. Tell me who writes the law that judiciary follows? Parliament. The judiciary did not write our constitution on which our laws are based. The parliament did.

Click to expand...

Ignoring your "I'm smarter than you quip", It's not just the parliament, the senate plays a big part on which laws are passed. The judiciary can strike down laws, and it's decisions can indirectly change the meaning of existing laws. Ultimately, the judiciary is an independent institution and answers to the parliament, but the parliament also answer to the judiciary. They're both keeping each other in check. Why do you think the Supreme Court was able to disqualify, not one, but two PMs during the Zardari era? If the supreme court wanted, it would have been able to disintegrate the entire government, and it would have had the right to.

Judiciary can only operate within the boundaries the PEOPLE OF THE NATION set for them. They are not above the constitution and law.

Click to expand...

Which is exactly my point. They're following the law, and you cannot blame them for make decisions that people may not like. They're bound by the constitution and rule of law, not popular opinion of the people. why? Because popular opinion among the people can end up ruining the nation.

I am glad you agree it must answer to the parliament.

Click to expand...

It was never an argument, of course I agree.

US woman shot in Pakistan recovering in hospital and in stable condition | World news | The Guardian

A US academic recovering in a Pakistan hospital after being shot by suspected militants has made an “immeasurable” contribution to the medical college where she works, a colleague said Friday.

Debra Lobo, 55, is conscious and in stable condition in a Karachi hospital after being shot once in the cheek and once in the arm on Thursday.

Leaflets dropped at the scene of the attack said Lobo was targeted because of her nationality and vowed more attacks on Americans.

Baqar Nawab, the administrator of Jinnah Medical and Dental College, where Lobo is an assistant professor of community health, hailed what she has done since joining in 1996.

“She has a huge contribution towards the growth of this college,” Nawab told AFP.

“We can never find her replacement and her contribution is immeasurable.”

Nawab said Lobo, who is married to a Pakistani Christian, was hugely popular with students.

“We got a lot of calls from former students of the college who are now serving as doctors in America. They were all very much concerned about her,” the administrator said.

Leaflets left at the scene of the shooting hinted at the involvement of militants linked to the Islamic State group, though they also claimed the attack as revenge for the death of suspected al-Qaida members in a police raid earlier in the week.

Nawab said Lobo had never been threatened and had completely integrated into the Pakistani way of life, adopting local dress and speaking Urdu fluently.

“She wears shalwar kameez, and she carries herself in the perfect way the local values call for,” he said.

“She is more mistaken for a Pashtun or Central Asian lady rather than an American woman.”

Karachi, a city of 20 million people, is racked by violence and targeted shootings are a near-daily occurrence, either for robbery or for religious, political or ethnic reasons.

But attacks on foreigners are rare.

Police said their investigation was focusing on groups whose members have been killed or arrested in a recent crackdown on militants in the city.

There have been concerns about Isis tapping support in Pakistan, a country awash with dozens of militant groups.

Some disaffected Pakistani Taliban cadres have also said they have switched allegiance to Isis, but the true extent of links to the group’s Middle East operations remains unclear.

Salman Zahidi said:

Read properly.

Click to expand...

He can't
In some other thread I replied to a post in which poster was doubting this incident a political relate, in reply I mention ISIS name among other few factors who involve in Karachi un rest doing Killing/Robberies/Extortion/Kidnaping etc. And he denies that.