Hafiz saeed to challenge US bounty in international court

[lem34]

Pakistan's courts don't do anything because they don't recognize Pakistan's international obligations if they aren't explicitly incorporated into Pakistani law. International relations recognizes no such barrier. The Secretary-General has been bugging the Pakistani government for years about this to no avail. Now the chickens come home to roost.

Unlike the OBL operation, I think the "invasion" - an armed team of thirty minimum, I imagine - should be sent as openly, publicly, and politely as possible. Either Pakistani officials can aid them or thwart them, it should all be public. If the team is aided, all will be well; if thwarted, Pakistan sets itself directly in violation of international laws - from that point a quick trip to Pakistan's designation as a terror state, cutoff of trade and aid, and subsequent political collapse.

I don't see why the U.S. should retain any qualms about embarrassing Pakistanis in public and shaming the entire nation, do you?[/QUOTE

Solomon you clearly have been deprived of sleep. Go take a nap

 

[JayAtl]

sounds like you're describing those people of yours on your side.....

how is it that an MBA candidate is lecturing you on legalities and how courts work....you bhartis need to learn to utilize your brains (for a change)

Indians are so dumb that they relied on the cumulative intelligence of the US ( put the bounty), UN and world intelligence groups and not on the MBA candidate studying under the hospice of amerika? those damn Bharatis!

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Pakistan's courts don't do anything because they don't recognize Pakistan's international obligations if they aren't explicitly incorporated into Pakistani law. International relations recognizes no such barrier. The Secretary-General has been bugging the Pakistani government for years about this to no avail. Now the chickens come home to roost.

Unlike the OBL operation, I think the "invasion" - an armed team of thirty minimum, I imagine - should be sent as openly, publicly, and politely as possible. Either Pakistani officials can aid them or thwart them, it should all be public. If the team is aided, all will be well; if thwarted, Pakistan sets itself directly in violation of international laws - from that point a quick trip to Pakistan's designation as a terror state, cutoff of trade and aid, and subsequent political collapse.

I don't see why the U.S. should retain any qualms about embarrassing Pakistanis in public and shaming the entire nation, do you?

All that is for the US Govt. to think and act upon as they consider necessary.

However the move by GOTUS to include Hafizzz Sayeed in the RFJ program can have some interesting ramifications. There is an ongoing litigation in an US court by the family of one of the US victims of the 26/11 carnage. Now the US Govt. can be sub poenaed and will have then take a stand on this issue as well. There is a strong likely-hood of other victims joining suit too. Of course, ISI was implicated in that matter too. That needs clarification also.

If Hafizzz moves an US court seeking redressal in this matter, that will be very good. There are still quite a few issues that are in the shadows; they will be exposed. So Hafizzz can become both plaintiff and respondent in the US judicial system.

 

[Ignited Mind]

Pakistan's courts don't do anything because they don't recognize Pakistan's international obligations if they aren't explicitly incorporated into Pakistani law. International relations recognizes no such barrier. The Secretary-General has been bugging the Pakistani government for years about this to no avail. Now the chickens come home to roost.

Unlike the OBL operation, I think the "invasion" - an armed team of thirty minimum, I imagine - should be sent as openly, publicly, and politely as possible. Either Pakistani officials can aid them or thwart them, it should all be public. If the team is aided, all will be well; if thwarted, Pakistan sets itself directly in violation of international laws - from that point a quick trip to Pakistan's designation as a terror state, cutoff of trade and aid, and subsequent political collapse.

I don't see why the U.S. should retain any qualms about embarrassing Pakistanis in public and shaming the entire nation, do you?

You're being too optimistic, my man.

Pakistan are humans just like you and me and hence, they can be shamed. But that is of no use since they exercise little control over their rogue army and establishment.

Talking of shaming Pakistani Army and establishment, well, you're being too optimistic is all I'd say. When you find a way to shame those without a conscience, do lemme know.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

Pakistan's courts don't do anything because they don't recognize Pakistan's international obligations if they aren't explicitly incorporated into Pakistani law

i can understand your knee-jerk response after 9/11 and the subsequent detentions of suspects (i emphasize SUSPECTS) even based on suspicion alone. Those who drafted the US Constitution (the most powerful document that supersedes all else in the USA) would be left quite puzzled as to how the issue of national security has infringed on the rights of Americans and foreign nationals brought in as ''enemy combatants''

My field isnt international law, for the record. Nor is it my job to defend suspects on internet forums -- people I have no relation with and people whom i have little sympathy for. My arguments are based solely on legal premises and little else -- though i am a lot more ''cautious'' about how Pakistan ought to pursue such cases in light of pressure tactics by friends and foes alike (and believe me, in line with my nature i prefer cordial exchanges with foreign countries but not at the expense of lapses in legal procedures that for too long our country has ignored until recently). America would also be doing a grave injustice to itself by engaging in the same:

The approach of the US courts, to providing access to habeas corpus to foreign nationals under their control on foreign territory, differs from well established principles of international human rights law; in particular, the practice of the UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), the European Commission on Human Rights (the European Commission), and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

On the issue of jurisdiction, Article 2(1) of ICCPR provides that each State Party "undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized" in the Covenant. (see box)

With regard to the writ of habeas corpus itself, even if the US Courts found jurisdiction it is likely to be argued that the President's Military Order of 13 November 2001 (Military Order) has suspended the prisoners' right to seek habeas corpus. Article 7(b)(2) of the Military Order provides that "the individual shall not be privileged to seek any remedy or maintain any proceeding, directly or indirectly, or to have any such remedy or proceeding sought on the individual's behalf, in (i) any court of the United States…". However, the US Constitution states that: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." And it is worth noting that the writ of habeas corpus has been suspended only twice in US history; first, by Lincoln during the American Civil War and, second, in Hawaii during the Second World War. Thus, there may be doubts whether the gravity of the existing threat to US security permits a suspension of habeas corpus under US Constitutional law.

GUANTANAMO BAY

International relations recognizes no such barrier. The Secretary-General has been bugging the Pakistani government for years about this to no avail. Now the chickens come home to roost.

has Ban Ki Moon issued a statement on this case? I know the UNSC has. If the US wanted to apply more pressure on Pakistan, why not motion for Pakistan to be de-throned from its temporary seat @ UNSC for what it claims (or what you are claiming) as ''non-cooperation'' ?

Unlike the OBL operation, I think the "invasion" - an armed team of thirty minimum, I imagine - should be sent as openly, publicly, and politely as possible.

it's a possibility....i'm not sure how well that would go down as it could potentially cause more embarassment to the US than actual ''results''

I'm sure neither side wants to witness that again after Raymond Davis saga, no?

Either Pakistani officials can aid them or thwart them, it should all be public. If the team is aided, all will be well; if thwarted, Pakistan sets itself directly in violation of international laws - from that point a quick trip to Pakistan's designation as a terror state, cutoff of trade and aid, and subsequent political collapse.

Architects of grandeur are often the master builders of disillusionment.

I don't see why the U.S. should retain any qualms about embarrassing Pakistanis in public and shaming the entire nation, do you?

they've already done so, no?

instilling false fear and sabre-rattling isnt a policy...it's what wounded animal does as a defense mechanism of sorts

I think Americans are good people and they deserve better representation and image than that

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

All that is for the US Govt. to think and act upon as they consider necessary.

However the move by GOTUS to include Hafizzz Sayeed in the RFJ program can have some interesting ramifications. There is an ongoing litigation in an US court by the family of one of the US victims of the 26/11 carnage. Now the US Govt. can be sub poenaed and will have then take a stand on this issue as well. There is a strong likely-hood of other victims joining suit too. Of course, ISI was implicated in that matter too. That needs clarification also.

If Hafizzz moves an US court seeking redressal in this matter, that will be very good. There are still quite a few issues that are in the shadows; they will be exposed. So Hafizzz can become both plaintiff and respondent in the US judicial system.

i whole-heartedly agree with you

 

[JayAtl]

^^^^ all that posted in #693 and if one summarizes it -

Your claim to know about legalities of this bounty is to have us believe that 'an enemy of state' cannot be determined as one either by our constitution or anyone's and thus to have a bounty put forth for his arrest in not legal

That's what it all boils down to i.e. Your legal assumptions ( you say you have no clue about our laws or are a student of international law) - yet claim it to be wrong because you said so? if we follow this logic then OBL bounty is illegal. Jawahari can roam freely in Pakistan too, because his bounty is illegal. Killing of TTP members by drones is illegal... should I go on?

and you called Indians what now?

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

^^^^ all that posted in #693 and if one summarizes it -

Your claim to know about legalities of this bounty is to have us believe that an enemy of state cannot be determined as one either by our constitution or anyone's and to have a bounty put forth for his arrest.

That's what it all boils down to i.e. Your legal assumptions ( you say you have no clue about our laws or are a student of international law) - yet claim it to be wrong because you said so

which part of my post did you take exception to? Any assumption I made that is or was incorrect ought to be corrected or at least addressed publicly, for the record. I'm always thirsty for knowledge.


MOD EDIT

 

[Bond]

says a terrorist sympathiser .... I do not want to re-itirate what pakistanis are known as world wide...

a bunch of hopeless tail-wagging dotheads? [/QUOTE]

 

[AbhimanyuShrivastav]

Not needed...

 

[JayAtl]

which part of my post did you take exception to? Any assumption I made that is or was incorrect ought to be corrected or at least addressed publicly, for the record. I'm always thirsty for knowledge.




a bunch of hopeless tail-wagging dotheads?

Really, did you have to show that you take a Pakistani and put him into an American class to study MBA but you can't put " class act" into his veins. Feel better taking the racist shot?

the exception I took was this monumental claim of a MBA candidate to put forth his assumptions of US and international laws . Is that simple.

Your entire claim is based on an assumption of being aware of international laws. You would be shocked to know that even Pakistan can put a bounty on anyone's head , regardless if they are a Pakistani citizen. I seem to have read it was either Pakistan or in another country where they issued an arrest warrant for Bush a while back.

any half asssed student let alone studying in the US knows that - on even a local level , if the police suspect a foreign national to have committed crimes, they can request for a warrant for his arrest. take that on a country to country level so as to speak -similarly for " state less actors " like you love to call them (up until now)- countries federal law enforcement/ federal judicial body can issue Interpol alerts and bounties for a said arrest.

Stick to MBA please... and then go back and prosper in Pakistan.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

Really, did you have to show that you take a Pakistani and put him into an American class to study MBA but you can't put " class act" into his veins. Feel better making taking the racist shot?

the exception I took was this monumental claim of a MBA candidate to put forth his assumptions of US and international laws . Is that simple. Your entire claim is based on legendary assumption of being aware of international laws. You would be shocked that even Pakistan, can put a bounty on anyone head , regardless if they a Pakistani citizen. I seem to read it was either Pakistan or in another country where they issues an arrest warrant for Bush a while back.

o putar,

perhaps you missed the posts (i emphasize the plural) where i clearly stated that I am NOT a law student nor i am well-versed in legal jurisprudence. What I've stated is so basic that even an autistic on life-support would understand.

if i made any mistakes or stated anything factually incorrect, please revisit them and correct them. I've asked already from you and your online butt-buddy Mr. Steven Cohen's intern....i'm awaiting response. Is it so hard?

stick to MBA please... and then go back and prosper in Pakistan.

Inshallah!

but this is a defence & political forum where discussion go beyond what we learn in those pristine lecture halls

truth be told, i dont even take much interest in Law but then again in times where double standards and politics are being brought to court-rooms, people like me will be that pain in the arse who asks the questions which our oh so dear leaders should be asking

you'd be crazy if you thought i'm arguing just for the sake of arguing blindly.....my time is more valuable than to be doing that

 

[AbhimanyuShrivastav]

US bounty on Hafiz Saeed meant to shut him down not eliminate him <-- What I have been saying since y'day
US bounty on Hafiz Saeed meant to shut him down not eliminate him - The Times of India

WASHINGTON: The United States does not intend to eliminate Pakistani military's posterboy terrorist Hafiz Saeed with a Drone attack or by any other means. The $ 10 million bounty announced this week by the Obama administration is aimed primarily at shutting down Saeed's terrorism operations even as Washington attempts to bring him to justice for the Mumbai carnage.

A close reading of the Rewards for Justice notification issued by the Justice Department reveals that the "up to $ 10 million" bounty is for "Information leading to the arrest or conviction of Hafiz Saeed," unlike the "Wanted" notice posted against Ayman Al Zawahiri and others with an implied call for their outright elimination.

"An informant could be eligible for a Rewards for Justice reward payment if his or her information were to lead to Saeed's conviction in any US or foreign court of law for his terrorist acts," an administration official clarified on Tuesday, implicitly discounting his elimination.

In effect, the US hopes that fear of arrest or conviction through evidentiary leak will compel Saeed to shut down future plans even if it does not result in his conviction for the Mumbai carnage, even though the State Department says he "participated in the planning of the four-day long terrorist attack."

"Saeed and his organization continue to spread ideology advocating terrorism, as well as virulent rhetoric condemning the United States, India, Israel, and other perceived enemies," the State Department said in a media note separate from the RfJ announcement.

Although administration officials did not directly explain why Saeed is being spared a death warrant, the scuttlebutt is that Washington does not want to aggravate the situation with the Pakistani security establishment, which engineered the Lashkar-e-taiba/Jamaat-ul-dawa and protects its supremo.

Saeed himself seldom goes beyond his lair in Lahore and Islamabad/Rawalpindi to be in the crosshairs of a Drone attack. On Tuesday, he was taunted on TV by a Pakistani lawmaker who challenged him to go and preach his anti-American message in Fata, with the implicit suggestion that he would be eviscerated by a Hellfire missile.

Instead, Saeed on Wednesday burrowed himself in Rawalpindi, the garrison city that is the Pakistani Army's headquarters, and in turn taunted the US to come and get him, offering them his address and future program so they could send him the bounty money.

Amid all this drama, a top Obama administration official flew to Pakistan to hold talks with the civilian government to restore a semblance of normalcy in the overwrought ties between the two sides. Deputy Secretary of State Tom Nides is the highest ranking US official to engage Pakistan's disjointed and military-ruled government since the Salala checkpost shootout in which the US killed 24 Pakistani soldiers.

From the time the US announced the bounty on Saeed, Washington has heard an earful about how it was aimed at pressuring Islamabad to re-open the Nato supply route and how it was done to please India etc, but US officials clarified on Tuesday that the notification was linked only to the 26/11 massacre (in which six American citizens died), that the process had been underway for some time, and nothing was done under pressure from India.

"(This process has been) in the works for quite a number of months. These things are somewhat complicated to work through all of the details. So the announcements were only able to be posted when the process was complete...we've been working on this for some time," State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland said.

Nuland explained that the process involved an intelligence evaluation and a policy evaluation, followed by a discussion with Congress. Then there is an entire review process and an interagency rewards committee has to look through it before the Secretary of State has to sign off on the notification.

"This is a lot of money for the US. taxpayer to put up, and so that process takes some time. Things have to be correlated," Nuland said of the $ 10 million bounty. Significantly, she also revealed that the review process had to "determine in the first instance whether offering a bounty of this kind... is likely to lead to any results in the case," suggesting that US authorities had weighed their decision before going public with the bounty call.

Separately, the State Department revealed that since its inception, the Rewards for Justice program has paid more than $100 million to more than 70 people who provided information that prevented international terrorist attacks or helped bring to justice those involved in such acts.

 

[JayAtl]

the

o putar,

perhaps you missed the posts (i emphasize the plural) where i clearly stated that I am NOT a law student nor i am well-versed in legal jurisprudence. What I've stated is so basic that even an autistic on life-support would understand.

if i made any mistakes or stated anything factually incorrect, please revisit them and correct them. I've asked already from you and your online butt-buddy Mr. Steven Cohen's intern....i'm awaiting response. Is it so hard?




Inshallah!

but this is a defence & political forum where discussion go beyond what we learn in those pristine lecture halls

truth be told, i dont even take much interest in Law but then again in times where double standards and politics are being brought to court-rooms, people like me will be that pain in the arse who asks the questions which our oh so dear leaders should be asking

you'd be crazy if you thought i'm arguing just for the sake of arguing blindly.....my time is more valuable than to be doing that

see highlighted. The reason we are baffled by your line of thought is because : You claim to espouse an assumptions of the law, while repeatedly telling us you as clueless as clueless comes about knowing the law , both US and international.

Then you ask us to correct you and when we do- repeatedly, you come back with racist and personal attacks and ask us to correct your assumptions.

Maybe this may help illustrate

you " you are wrong to say B comes after A in the alphabet, it's C"
we " No , It's A B C , that's the order"
you" No you dothead, I don't know the alphabet, but show me I'm wrong"
we" Okay once again- since you don't know and we do it's B after A"
you " you are retard , I never said I knew the alphabet, but tell me where I'm wrong"

I don't about "god willing" comment you made. I know Americans need to be thanked for allowing you into our institutions. and as one American I can tell you I'll be happy for one less sympathizer of all those who attacks us- out of this country.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

why does indian media keep acting as if HS (a civilian) is on the payroll or is a ''poster boy'' for the Pakistani Military?

sounds quite unsubstantiated and thus, quite absurd. No wonder nobody takes their media seriously inside and outside of the country.




this just in from the Foreign Office:

Pakistan will give priority to solid evidence provided against Hafiz Saeed.

Basit added that solid evidence was required to initiate legal action against Saeed. The Foreign Office spokesman emphasized that Pakistan was a democratic country with an independent judiciary and evidence against anyone required judicial scrutiny.

see highlighted. The reason we are baffled by your line of thought is because : You claim to espouse an assumptions of the law, while repeatedly telling us you as clueless as clueless comes about knowing the law , both US and international.

Then you ask us to correct you and when we do- repeatedly, you come back with racist and personal attacks and ask us to correct your assumptions.

Maybe this may help illustrate

you " you are wrong to say B comes after A in the alphabets, it's C"
we " No , It's A B C , that's the order"
you" No you dothead, I don't know the alphabets, but show me I'm wrong"
we" Okay once again- since you don't know and we do it's B after A"
you " you are retard , I never said I knew the alphabets, but tell me where I'm wrong"

Sorry. that isnt what i asked for (dothead )

please try again; i would suggest that you revisit my posts and singly identify points in which i was wrong and/or made incorrect assumptions and/or mistook opinion as fact.


i dont expect a deadline -- but when you DO actually muster the courage to do so, please ensure you are thorough in your approach. I'll be happy to reply in kind.