Pakistani military agitated with judiciary: Report

The Pakistani security establishment feels extremely agitated over a plethora of statements coming from the highest judicial circles, coupled with some recent court decisions which it believes were tantamount to undermining the Pakistan Army as an institution which should have been credited not only for strengthening democracy but also for ensuring the independence of the judiciary, news reports said .

Even though the restoration of the superior judiciary in 2009 became possible due to combined struggle of the lawyers, civil society, political parties and media, there are those in the security establishment who think otherwise and insist that the defiant judiciary owes its current independence to Army Chief General Ashfaq Kayani who had played a vital role at the time of the March 2009 long march by the opposition to ensure the restoration of 100-plus deposed judges of superior courts, including Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, The News reported Friday.

The most recent development which seems to have really angered the establishment is the acceptance of an application by the Islamabad High Court, challenging the extension given to General Kayani as Army Chief in 2012.

But the most disturbing aspect of the petition for the khaki leadership is the impression created by the petitioner that the COAS was indulging in politics. Col (R) Inamur Rahim, the petitioner, has alleged in his November 12 application with the chief justice of the Islamabad High Court that the COAS had issued a political statement on November 5.

While seeking an early hearing of his intra-court appeal challenging Kayani’s extension, the petitioner has maintained that the November 5 statement by the Chief of Army Staff has disturbed the civil society and caused fears about the future of democracy in Pakistan.

The Colonel, who was subjected to severe torture on November 14 in Rawalpindi by unidentified assailants, has maintained in his November 12 application to the IHC Chief Justice: “Had General Kayani ever been a person subject to the Army Act 1952, he would not have dared to issue a political statement (advising the state institutions not to cross the limits prescribed in the Constitution) which is in clear violation of the oath of the office of a legitimate Army Chief”. 

A division bench of the IHC has accepted the application and put off the hearing of the case till the third week of November.

The Army Chief had stated on November 5 while talking to a group of Army officers in Rawalpindi: “Weakening of institutions and trying to assume more than one’s due role will set the country back. No individual or institution has the monopoly to decide what is right or wrong in defining the ultimate national interest”.

While the judicial circles in Islamabad believe that General Kayani’s statement carried veiled challenges to the superior judiciary, those in the military establishment insist that it was purely a non-political statement in which General Kayani had not named any of the institutions or individuals.

But the fact remains that Kayani had spoken the day (on November 5) Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry addressed the participants of the National Management Course in Lahore and redefined the term national security by describing the Supreme Court as the absolute authority with regard to the national interests of the state and adding that weapons alone could no longer assure national security.

It is largely assumed that General Kayani’s statement, which was officially provided to the media by the ISPR, was directed towards the superior judiciary whose verdict in the Asghar Khan case has not gone down well with the khakis.

However, a senior khaki official said General Kayani’s statement actually reflected the concerns of an important state institution which is being undermined not only by a ‘hyper active judiciary’ but also by an ‘increasingly reckless media’.

Source  http://thepeninsulaqatar.com/pakistan-afghanistan/214693-pakistani-military-agitated-with-judiciary-report.html

'Innocence of Muslims' no longer innocent in Russia

Despite media reports claiming that Russia’s Human Rights Ombudsman Vladimir Lukin will challenge the ban on the "Innocence of Muslims" film he is not going to do it, according to a posting on his website.

"During the hearings we spoke about a shortage of competitiveness in such hearings as an important procedural problem. But this has nothing to do with the assessment of the content of the "Innocence of Muslims" film," the posting says.

Meanwhile, President of the Chechen Republic has regarded the ban as positive sigh for Russia. “It’s a good example of a civilized approach to resolving the problem,” he said in a posting on his press service web-site.  “General Prosecutor’s office and the [Moscow] court demonstrated their vigor to withstand any attempts of breeding strife between citizens of the country on national and religious basis.”

Yesterday, a Moscow district court found the film “Innocence of Muslims” to be extremist and thereby approved a petition from the General Prosecutor’s office, which had argued that the film sows religious discord and provokes increased intolerance in society.

Marina Gridneva, official spokesperson for the General Prosecutor’s office, told RBC that the petition was made because the film includes video sequences and dialogue which imply that Islam and Muslims are inferior.

“A psychological and linguistic study of the film carried out at the request of the General Prosecutor’s office confirmed that its content is intended to provoke religious hatred and humiliate people on the basis of their ethnicity and religious affiliation,” Gridneva noted.

The court’s decision will now be sent to the Russian Ministry of Justice, which will include the video on its federal list of extremist materials.

The Leninsky district court in Grozny, Chechnya had previously found a trailer for the film to be extremist.

Under Russia law, such a decision by any court to ban extremist material automatically comes into effect throughout the entire country. At the same time, other Russian courts are also entitled to take decisions concerning such petitions by the Prosecutor’s Office. In the case of conflicting verdicts, the matter is resolved by the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile service providers in some Russian regions put a temporary ban on access to YouTube last week on the basis of a letter from the Prosecutor’s Office.

Google’s Russian division has already stated that it’s prepared to block access to the film on YouTube as soon as it receives an instruction from a court to do so.

“Innocence of Muslims” was released at the beginning of September and featured content many Muslims found offensive. The film sparked a series of worldwide anti-American protests. The video is already blocked in a number of countries, including Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Sudan, Egypt, Libya and Malaysia.

Source  http://rbth.ru/articles/2012/10/02/innocence_of_muslims_not_innocent_in_russia_18755.html

Pakistan's top court strikes down contempt law

Pakistan's Supreme Court on Friday struck down a recently passed law to protect the prime minister from being charged with contempt of court and ousted from office, like his predecessor, for refusing to reopen an old corruption case against the president.

The ruling comes less than a week before the deadline set by the court for the current premier, Raja Pervaiz Ashraf, to tell the judges whether he will obey their order to write a letter to Swiss authorities asking them to reopen the graft case.

The government and court have been locked in conflict over the issue since the beginning of the year, stoking political instability that has distracted from what many in the country see as more pressing problems, such as the struggling economy and a Taliban insurgency.

The court could repeatedly disqualify prime ministers over the issue, undermining the government and forcing an early national.

Parliament passed the new law in early July after former Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani was convicted of contempt and forced to step down. The law provided greater protection to the prime minister and other senior government officials against contempt charges.

The court struck down the law because it violated the basic principle of equality among the country's citizens, said Zafr Ullah, a lawyer who challenged the law.

The government has refused to reopen the corruption case against Zardari, saying he enjoys immunity from prosecution while in office. His supporters have accused the court of relentlessly pursuing the matter because of bad blood between Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry and the president.

The new prime minister, Ashraf, has also indicated he has no plans to write the letter to Swiss authorities. If the court convicts him of contempt and orders his removal from office, the government would be forced to once again seek support in parliament to elect a new premier or call early national elections.

It's unclear which option the government would choose. The ruling Pakistan People's Party has been keen on holding elections as scheduled in early 2013 because it could then boast being the first civilian government to serve a full five-year term in the country's 65-year history. Past governments have been toppled by the direct or indirect intervention of the army, often with the help if the judiciary.

The case against Zardari relates to kickbacks he and his late wife, former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, allegedly received from Swiss companies when Bhutto was in power in the 1990s. They were found guilty in absentia in a Swiss court in 2003.

Zardari appealed, but Swiss prosecutors dropped the case after the Pakistani parliament passed an ordinance giving the president and others immunity from old corruption cases that many agreed were politically motivated.

The measure was criticized by many in Pakistan, who saw it as an attempt to subvert the law. The Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional in 2009 and ordered the government to write to Swiss authorities requesting they reopen the case.

A Swiss prosecutor told the media last year that Geneva couldn't bring proceedings against Zardari because he has immunity as a head of state.

The Supreme Court has also said it would respect the president's immunity, but it still wants the government to write the letter to the Swiss and is frustrated the government has long disobeyed its orders to do so.

The court has ordered the government to declare whether it will write the letter by Aug. 8.

Source  http://www.nbc29.com/story/19187173/pakistans-top-court-strikes-down-contempt-law

No crime, no time

As I read York's two newspapers recently, I found it interesting to note how former Rep. Steve Stetler's friends and political cronies/pals reacted to his guilty verdicts on conflict-of-interest, criminal conspiracy, and the felonies of theft.

Steve Chronister, president York County Commissioner, said Mr. Stetler is a "good man" but "I certainly don't second-guess the jury" and "just hope an innocent man wasn't charged." Come on, Mr. Chronister, you do not want to second guess the jury but it seems like you just did. Commissioner Chronister then noted that prisons are for criminals, and Mr. Stetler is not a criminal in his book. Then what is he? An innocent non-criminal felon? Get real.

York City Councilman Henry Nixon was "saddened" by the verdict. I can buy that description. It is sad, but he then goes on to state, "If he ever did anything it was to better his community." Who knowingly commits numerous felonies "for the betterment of his community"? The "election system" is at fault. Not Mr. Stetler, but the system. Maybe the system should have just looked the other way since he was only trying to help his community. How thoughtful of him, looking out for all his district voters.

Former York Mayor John Brenner called the verdict a "tragedy." It did not have to be a tragedy, he never should have committed the felonies. It is as simple as that. No crime, no time. Play it straight and you do not have to worry about going to jail.

Source  http://www.ydr.com/letters/ci_21021704/no-crime-no-time

An unresponsive system

* Political will or interest alignment?

Often one hears that the state, though it might hold a position on principle, does not do anything about it because it lacks ‘political will’. When the Supreme Court decision on the Karachi suo moto was being analysed by politicians on various television channels, it was repeatedly said that the solutions had been pointed out but the government does not have the political will to do anything about it.

It is the same with the debate on education. Everybody agrees that all children in Pakistan should get quality education, yet the state is not doing anything about it. The Task Force on Education, set up by government, co-chaired by the Special Assistant to the Prime Minister, had to argue that we need to impose an education emergency and had to resort to innovative marketing methods to reach out.

Why would one part of government have to do this sort of marketing and public cajoling to convince the rest of the government? Especially when rest of the government is also from the same political party, and it was the party head and the president of the country who had set up the task force in the first place? Not that there was any success even after that: we are still going our merry way. But, most people end up saying, the government does not have the political will to change education sector.

Is it really a question of political will? And more importantly, what is political will? Or is it a matter of interests? The players in question, individually and at group level, do not have any interest in addressing these questions. They might find a position morally, socially, or politically difficult to refute and they might, intellectually, agree with it too, and/or pay lip service to it. But if it is not in their personal, class or group interest, will they be willing to spend their effort or political capital on achieving it? For most politicians in Pakistan where it is not a matter of ideology or commitment to common good that makes politicians enter politics or continue in it, it seems private or group interests would trump any public considerations.

When we puzzle as to why the government and elected representatives do not make public schools better and improve quality, the question is why should they? It might be in the public interest, but the children of politicians do not go to these schools, and the politicians also know that it is not by improving education that they are going to be re-elected. It is by appeasing the establishment, getting the right ticket, and/or appeasing some biraderi groups that elections are won. Why should they spend any effort on the public school system? This is not a question of something called political will; it is purely a game of interests.

It is easy for opposition members to blame the government and/or the party in power. But in Pakistan right now, almost all the parties are either in a coalition with the main party or are in power in one of the provinces. Yet, we do not see the game being any different in these provinces too.

If PPP lacks the political will to do anything in education at the centre or in Sindh, what has stopped ANP, PML(N) or MQM from doing things in places where they are in power? Or, given that many school reforms are at the level of school or district and MNA/MPAs get funds for development for their constituencies, what have they done for public schools in their respective constituencies.

Conversations with several MNAs have revealed that they feel that since parents do not come to them articulating the need for improvements in quality of education in public schools, they have no incentive to take anything to their party leaders or do anything about education themselves. But they do agree, and wholeheartedly, that education is important and every child has a right to good quality education.

Given there is little chance that our political system will take a more ideological turn where people and parties will try to get into power to implement a defined and announced ideological agenda, at least in the short to medium run, we have to look to finding ways of how the interests of those in power can be aligned with the interest of the governed.

Elections are definitely a way of creating a feedback loop from citizens to elected representatives on the kind of governance they have been providing. But elections are too infrequent and there are too many issues to really make elections biting for any one issue, unless the issue assumes lexicographic importance in the agenda of citizens. Since there are usually a number of things that citizens care about, for example, infrastructure facilities, health, education, and law and order, periodic elections will not be enough.

What are needed are some other and more frequently available feedback loops between the governors and the governed. An idea that Immanuel Kant also talked about and developed was of public space. He had argued that the newly developing public space, that the civil society (for him civil society was any person who was using public space for public reasons) has, could be a way of providing that loop. Right now our media is probably offering that opportunity, though its usage needs to be improved. More importantly, the same kind of loops need to be created at local levels also, using local media, maybe FM radio channels and other public fora.

The idea of public space and its usage, in the Pakistani context, as a means of providing a feedback loop and connection between the governors and the governed needs more development and we will come back to this issue in subsequent articles. But for the moment, I just wanted to argue for and demonstrate that the talk of political will seems like barking up the wrong tree. The real issue is individual and group interests and their alignment with public interest.

Source http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2011/10/an-unresponsive-system/

Why penalize the innocent victims?

One who has violated the law should suffer the consequences of his or her actions. On the other hand, the victim of an offense should be compensated. But this is not the case for hundreds of Filipino teachers in Maryland.

The United States-based teachers were the victims of their employer’s violations of the working visa program. Yet, these Filipino teachers will suffer the consequences of those violations.

From 2005 until 2009, Filipino teachers were recruited to work for the Prince George County Public Schools (PGCPS) in Maryland. Most of them paid more than $10,000 to a recruitment agency to cover “processing” costs which included, among others, the cost of their working visas.

After an investigation, the US Department of Labor found that the school district had failed to comply with wage requirements as well as various violations of the conditions of the visa issuance. The employer and interested parties were given 15 days to appeal the decision dated April 4, 2011.

Strong agreement

On July 7, 2011 the Department of Labor issued a public statement announcing that an “agreement” was reached wherein the employer would reimburse teachers their back wages (about $4,000 each) and the cost of their visa petitions. The assessment came up to $4.22 million for 1,044 teachers.

Included in the agreement was a “debarment” against the employer, prohibiting them from filing new working visa petitions, renewing visa petitions that were expiring; and filing immigrant visa petitions for their employees.

Those teachers who already have immigrant green cards will not be affected by the debarment. Unfortunately, many are still holding temporary working visas. Since the agreement was reached on July 7, 2011 termination letters have already been sent to those whose visas are expiring in July and August 2011.

Debarment is intended to punish the employer but it has an adverse effect on the employees.

Depriving these teachers the opportunity to extend their visas is an unfair result of a penalty due to the employer’s misdeeds.

At the time when former President Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Law, these highly qualified Filipino teachers filled up positions and diligently practiced their professions both in non-critical and critical areas. Some of the teachers left promising careers and relocated their families. The monetary compensation in back wages and reimbursements is insignificant compared to the loss of their jobs.

They are not lawbreakers

The agreement reached between the DOL and the PGCPS appears not to have included the affected teachers during the negotiation. Instead of the agreement, a hearing on the matter should have been conducted to prove that the acts of PGCPS did not amount to a “willful” violation warranting a debarment. At the very least, the teachers who have served the children of PGCPS for many years must be exempt from the ‘debarment’ and should be allowed the opportunity to renew their visas. If not, prosecutorial discretion on the part of the Department of Homeland Security must be favorably exercised. For after all, the teachers are the victims and not the lawbreakers.

Source http://globalnation.inquirer.net/7111/why-penalize-the-innocent-victims

Take 2: 56ers, Fire to play Wednesday

It was a strange night of soccer Tuesday at Breese Stevens Field. And in the end, not very much soccer.

The Madison 56ers and the Chicago Fire's Premier Development League played just more than 17 minutes of their second-round U.S. Open Cup match before the game was halted by lightning with the Fire ahead 1-0.

A little more than 2 hours later, officials postponed the match, which will be replayed in its entirety at 4 p.m. Wednesday at Breese Stevens. The 56ers announced that admission will be free.

"It's a little weird. (Stuff) happens," 56ers coach Jim Launder said.

"It's good and bad. It's a replay, so we just erase the goal and start over. It's not good because we lost a huge fan night ... It's not good because we'll play in a dead stadium tomorrow, because nobody will be here at 4 p.m. And it's not good because I think we're going to be missing two players, maybe three."

The Fire certainly wanted the game to resume, having taken the early lead on Chris Estridge's goal in the ninth minute.

Indiana midfielder Harrison Petts, who pounded a shot from 23 yards out off the corner of the crossbar and left post in the fourth minute, chipped a ball for Estridge over the 56ers' backline and the Wake Forest midfielder calmly finished against Madison goalkeeper Kyle Dillman (Madison La Follette).

Estridge raced over to celebrate with about 25 members of the Fire's Section 8 supporters group who made the trip north. They lived up to their reputation, pounding on drum, singing songs and waving massive flags.

Four minutes later, Fire forward Paulo Vaz also got in behind the 56ers' backline, but Dillman made a sliding save on the Lynn University striker.

"Two times when we didn't get pressure on the ball and we didn't step back and we just let guys run in behind us," said Launder, who added that he would re-evaluate his lineup overnight. "I wasn't impressed with our defensive stance. All of our backs did the same thing, they all just stopped."

Referee Margaret Domka suspended play 17 minutes, 19 seconds into the match as storms rolled into the area and lightning was spotted. Heavy rains followed, and intermittent showers and lightning persisted. All the while, the Section 8 group kept drumming and singing.

"It was a little surreal," Fire PDL coach Mark Spooner said. "We were trying to get updates and (the officials) weren't that forthcoming with them, so it was frustrating. But it is what is; nobody can do anything about the weather.

"The thing that I don't like, obviously, is now you start 0-0 again for 90 minutes. I would think that there would be a better method than that in a competition like this."

If the match had reached 45 minutes, it would have been declared a result.

However, for the game to be resumed, 20 minutes needed to pass without lightning in the area, and there still were regular flashes in the skies as the teams left the stadium. Also, the lights at Breese Stevens need to be turned off by 11 p.m. due to a local ordinance.

"They would want to get that half game in and win the game – I would, too," Launder said. "It wasn't going to happen."

So for the Fire, it was yet another night spent in a hotel. They had three road matches last week and have logged more than 1,500 miles during trips to Iowa, Kentucky, Ohio and Wisconsin.

"It's just one thing after another," said Spooner, whose team requested Wednesday's replay be moved to 4 p.m. from the scheduled 7 p.m. start time to help them get back to Chicago earlier with a PDL match Friday.

"You know, though, it's good for their development. This whole program is designed around them becoming pros, and this is part of it. We have to react now to it and see where we can go."

Speaking late Tuesday night, Spooner said when they got to the hotel, there weren't enough rooms.

"What a fun night," he deadpanned.

Source http://www.wisconsinsoccercentral.com/amateur/madison-56ers-npsl/3148-take-2-56ers-fire-to-play-wednesday