Quotes

If you judge people you have no time to love them. ~Mother Teresa

Our thoughts are unseen hands shaping the people we meet. Whatever we truly think them to be, that's what they'll become for us. ~Richard Cowper

We are each burdened with prejudice; against the poor or the rich, the smart or the slow, the gaunt or the obese. It is natural to develop prejudices. It is noble to rise above them. ~Author Unknown

Preconceived notions are the locks on the door to wisdom. ~Merry Browne

Judge me all you want, just keep the verdict to yourself. ~From a Winston advertisement

Morality is simply the attitude we adopt towards people whom we personally dislike. ~Oscar Wilde

Judgements prevent us from seeing the good that lies beyond appearances. ~Wayne W. Dyer

Our prejudices are like physical infirmities - we cannot do what they prevent us from doing. ~John Lancaster Spalding

Small is the number of people who see with their eyes and think with their minds. ~Albert Einstein

Iraq: Public Opinion Five Years In

Five years after the start of the Iraq war, American public opinion has solidified around the notion that the war was not worth fighting and that the United States is not making significant progress toward restoring civil order there.

For more than three years, majorities in Washington Post-ABC News polling have called the war's benefits not worth the costs. And the percentages calling the war a mistake have been higher than those saying it has been worth it since before the 2004 presidential election. Two-thirds in the latest poll said the war was not worth fighting, including 51 percent who felt so "strongly." (Check out a pre-primary analysis of public opinion on the war here).

But not everyone has turned on the war, which most Americans supported at the outset. Republicans have remained strongly behind the war since the outset, with more than two-thirds saying the was worth fighting in the most recent Post-ABC poll. Only a third of independents and one in eight Democrats agree.

Assessments of the current situation on the ground are somewhat more positive, and have improved since the deployment of additional troops to Iraq. Forty-three percent now say they believe the U.S. is making strides toward restoring security in Iraq, higher than it was in December 2006. But the percentage seeing progress has changed little over the past four months. Nearly eight in 10 Republicans said significant progress is being made, as did 40 percent of independents 24 percent of Democrats.

Iraqis themselves have a somewhat improved outlook on the state of life in their country, particularly the security situation. According to a survey of Iraqis conducted by ABC News and several international TV news outlets, 55 percent now say their lives are going well, a big bump up from 39 percent in August. However, 61 percent said the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq is making the security situation there worse. About three in 10 said American troops improve security. For more from the poll, click here.

Back in this country, the remarkable stability of American opinions on the war combined with a dramatically souring economy have contributed to the war's decline in importance in the ongoing presidential election campaign. In early September, more than a third cited the war as their top concern in choosing a president, while one in 10 named the economy. Five months later, the economy outweighed the war by 20 percentage points.

And President Bush's approval rating has been steadily dragged down by flagging assessments of the war in Iraq, and has not topped 50 percent in more than three years. In the most recent poll, only 32 percent approve of the job Bush is doing as president, tying his career low in Post-ABC polling.

[Source: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers...]

Restoring the pre-Nov 3 judiciary

By Kazim Hasan

The president and his advisors persist in propagating the fiction that the constitutional amendments made by him have become effective and do not require validation. They seem to be under the impression that if they say this long enough and loudly enough, everyone will believe them. The correct position is that all amendments made since November 3, 2007 have ceased to have legal effect. Unless the purported amendments contemplated by Article 270-AAA passed by a two-thirds majority of the legislature, they shall have no legal effect whatsoever. A permanent change in the constitution cannot be countenanced at the behest of the president or of the Supreme Court. Any attempt by any "court" to negate this, would be violative of the basic law. Even otherwise, the new Assembly must be reminded that each member of the armed forces is required, vide Article 244 of the constitution, to take oath as follows:

"I, do solemnly swear that I will bear true faith and allegiance to Pakistan and uphold the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan which embodies the will of the people, that I will not engage myself in any political activities whatsoever and that I will honestly and faithfully serve Pakistan in the Pakistan Army (or Navy or Air Force) as required by and under the law."

The proclamation of the emergency and the promulgation of the PCO apart from being void ab initio, must be categorized as political acts. The then chief of Army Staff could not, in his capacity as army chief, have imposed the emergency as he could not engage in political activities, nor could he act in violation of the constitution which he had sworn to uphold. An attempt is also being made by the presidency as well as by a few politicians to trivialize the courageous stand taken on and after November 3, 2007 by the judges of the Superior Courts. It is repeatedly said that this is a storm in a tea-cup as some of the judges took oath under the previous Provisional Constitutional Order. The presidency and these politicians have lost sight of the fact that on November 3, 2007, the Supreme Court of Pakistan passed an Order which, in material part, directed as follows:

"1) Government of Pakistan i.e. president and prime minister of Pakistan are restrained from undertaking any such action, which is contrary to independence of judiciary.

2) No judge of the Supreme Court or the High Courts including chief justice(s) shall take oath under PCO or any other extra constitutional step.

3) Chief of Army Staff, Corps Commanders, Staff Officers and all concerned of the civil and military authorities are hereby restrained from acting on PCO which has been issued or from administering fresh oath to chief justice of Pakistan or judges of Supreme Court and chief justice or judges of the provincial high courts. They are also restrained to undertake any such action, which is contrary to independence of judiciary. Any further appointment of the chief justice of Pakistan and judges of the Supreme Court and chief justices of high courts or judges of provinces under new development shall be unlawful and without jurisdiction.

Put up before full court on 5th November 2007."

In the light of the above Order, all actions in violation thereof are illegal, unconstitutional and void. The judges who did not take oath were upholding the directions of the Supreme Court, which was not the case with earlier PCOs.

That the presidency is supporting this proposition is hardly surprising. However, the politicians who parrot this line must keep in mind that a strong and independent judiciary is the main bulwark against assaults by non-democratic forces and will be their most powerful protection in the future. The pre November 3, 2007 position must be restored and restored immediately.

The writer is a barrister-at-law. Email: kazimhas@gmail.com

[Source: http://www.thenews.com.pk/print1.asp?id=101817]

Ex-judges say NA resolution enough for reinstatement

KARACHI, March 15: Eight former judges of the Supreme Court, three chief justices among them, have affirmed that the removal of judges under the emergency decree on Nov 3 was unconstitutional and that a resolution in the National Assembly would be “more than sufficient” for their reinstatement.

“The removal of judges, which was admittedly unconstitutional being in defiance of Article 209 of the Constitution, could not be validated by the unilateral act of one individual through the so-called introduction of Article 270-AAA and purported amendments to 270-C in the Constitution nor could it be validated by the Supreme Court,” the former judges said in a joint statement released on Saturday.

“Since Article 270-AAA and 270-C (2) have not been adopted by two-thirds majority of the parliament, they are not part of the Constitution.

“The power to make permanent amendment in the Constitution does not vest in the president. Nor can any court confer such a power, particularly a bench appointed through an unconstitutional instrument and acting in defiance of order dated Nov 3 passed by the Supreme Court established under the Constitution,” the statement went on to say.

The statement was signed by Justice Ajmal Mian, Justice Sajjad Ali Shah and Justice Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, former chief justices of Pakistan, Justice Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim, Justice Deedar Hussain Shah, Justice Mamoon Qazi, Justice Nasir Aslam Zahid and Justice Kamal Mansour Alam.

The former judges said no “principle of state necessity” allowed an individual to “make permanent changes in the supreme law”.

“Even if an individualised power to amend were to be conceded, such power can only be available during the period of deviation/emergency and, upon restoration of the Constitution, the power to make changes as well as the effects thereof stand completely effaced unless duly indemnified by the Parliament.”

The statement recalled that the amendments introduced in the Constitution by Gen Ziaul Haq in 1985 and by Gen Pervez Musharraf in 2002 had become part of the Constitution only after they were adopted by a two-thirds majority through the 8th Amendment Act of 1985 and through the 17th Amendment Act of 2003.

“Accordingly, a two-third parliamentary majority is not required to restore deposed judges.

“A simple resolution in the National Assembly reflecting the intention of the people’s representatives to deny affirmation to the purported amendments would provide more than sufficient backing for the executive to do the needful which is, in any event, obligated under articles 5 and 190 of the Constitution to take immediate measures restoring all Chief Justices and judges removed on Nov 3 (save those having reached the age of superannuation) and issue necessary directions to concerned law enforcement agencies enabling the deposed judges to resume their judicial duties.”

About the judges appointed during the emergency and since, the statement said the “removals being unconstitutional, no new appointments of chief justices or judges could be made against existent or non-existent vacancies, particularly without consulting the de jure Chief Justice”.

“Nevertheless, on humanitarian considerations the cases of deserving meritorious appointees could be considered for fresh appointment in accordance with the exercise carried out in Al Jehad Trust case,” the statement said.

Source: http://www.dawn.com/2008/03/16/top16.htm

Thank you, Musharraf

ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN - MARCH 15: A wounded foreigner is carried out of Italian restaurant Luna Caprese after an explosion was detonated amidst diners on March 15, 2008, in Islamabad Pakistan. Three people have been reported killed in the blast and several wounded.

US Tones Down Praise for Musharraf

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Just months ago, the United States publicly championed Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf as an ''indispensable'' ally.

Now, officials barely mention the man the Bush administration once promoted as essential to holding together a nuclear-armed country deemed crucial to the U.S.-led fight against extremists in South Asia.

The new tone comes as the United States works to gain the favor of Pakistani opposition forces that won big in last month's parliamentary elections and as Musharraf's grip on power weakens. The newly empowered politicians are promising to reinstate fired judges who had questioned the legality of Musharraf's continuing in office.

The United States says it still intends to work with the former army chief, whom Pakistani lawmakers elected to a five-year presidential term in October. But the Bush administration appears to be shifting from making support for Musharraf the core of its Pakistan policy, which many U.S. lawmakers and Pakistani opposition leaders have long wanted.

Robert Hathaway, director of the Woodrow Wilson Center's Asia program, said Bush officials will not abandon Musharraf, ''but clearly they have to, in rather dramatic fashion, alter what had been their previous practice of putting all of the American eggs in a Musharraf basket.''

Full story @ http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-US-Pakistan.html..]

Musharraf's departure would give Pakistan a chance to grow up

By Gwynn Dyer

Two things are needed for the current train of events in Pakistan to have a happy ending. One is that ex-general and more-or-less-president Pervez Musharraf accepts his rejection by Pakistan's voters gracefully and leaves office without too much fuss.

"This is the people's verdict against him . . .. He should accept the facts and he should not create hurdles and rifts," as former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, whom Musharraf overthrew in 1999, put it. The other necessary condition of a happy outcome is that the White House, Musharraf's enthusiastic backer ever since the terrorist attacks of September, 2001, doesn't try to save him.

Hanging onto the commander-in-chief's job for 10 years, until he was three years past the obligatory retirement age, did not endear Musharraf to his fellow generals, nor was his perceived subservience to American interests popular among them. When the new commander in chief, General Ashfaq Kayani, said after last month's election that the army would stay out of the political process, he probably meant it.

In that case, Musharraf's problems are probably terminal. In the parliamentary elections of Feb. 18 (postponed for six weeks after the assassination of Benazir Bhutto in December), the ex-general's tame political party, the PML-Q, won only 15 percent...

Full post @ http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_8578177

Of Declarations, Restorations and Premiership Aspirations

The victorious parties have acted prudently thus far in the post-election scenario. They must not squander the opportunity the nation has given them in the days to come.

Ammar Rashid

Now that the smoke has cleared from the results of the Feb 18^th polls, it is time to assess the nation’s future as it appears from here. The picture certainly appears brighter than before; The King’s men defeated, the opposition victorious and united, the Lawyers’ High Command released and the President (with Peerzada and Qayyum, forever loyal, by his side) backed into the tightest of corners. How the Mighty hath fallen indeed.

The February 18 election may well turn out to be a landmark in our nation’s chequered history, as the harbinger of a new era of democracy and stability, elements missing almost entirely from our political landscape for years. The remarkable sagacity and political maturity on display from the erstwhile political enemies, Sharif and Zardari, in the post-election scenario has also come as quite a surprise. The PPP and PML-N, as the two majority parties, stand united in their commitment to the restoration of the judiciary, the supremacy of the parliament and the choice of diplomacy over military action against the militants in the north. The Murree Declaration has put onto paper what political pundits had been expressing doubt about since the election; the commitment of the leading parties to their election manifestos, their tenacity in the face of blatant foreign interference and their ability to resolve their outstanding differences. The parties have pledged to restore the ousted judges within 30 days of the convening of the National Assembly, participate in each others governments in the Centre and the Punjab, and remove the sweeping powers of the President accorded to him by the contentious Article 58-2 (b). All very noble and worthy ambitions, to be sure; serious obstacles, however, remain to be cleared for their culmination.

In the Presidential camp, the mood is terse and seemingly ripe for confrontation, notwithstanding the rather delusional statements on offer about ‘establishing a working relationship with the parliament for the next five years.’ The legal aides to the sulking President continue to scoff at the possibility of the reinstatement of the judiciary by a parliamentary resolution, terming the notion as ‘unconstitutional’ and claiming the restoration can only be brought about by an amendment in the constitution, for which a 2/3rds majority is required. These same aides continue to assert the primacy and constitutionality of the abrogation of the constitution and ouster of the judges on the 3^rd of November. In the event of the threatened parliamentary resolution taking form, it is, therefore, likely that the executive will take recourse to the puppet PCO-Supreme Court to have the resolution declared illegal.

That such aides could prompt the embattled President to dismiss the elected Assembly – possibly his last available option - before it can make the crucial decision is an unsettling but remote prospect. In doing so, the President would, in essence, be laying waste to the nation’s mandate, which he so proudly claims to have brought to fruition himself (even though he continues to ignore its rather obvious implications for his rule). Moreover, he would require the wholehearted support of the Army for such a maniacal intervention; something he cannot be so sure of anymore.

The Lawyers’ Movement, now into its second year, has remained resolute in its unwillingness to accept any compromise on the judges’ restoration. Seeing their goal finally within reach, they will not hesitate to take the winning parties to task if they see them wavering. Their leaders have been released and are campaigning in full flow; the recent shows of strength in Lahore and Karachi proved that the judges’ issue is alive and well, in the country’s consciousness as well as in the streets. The lawyers’ stance is clear; even a parliamentary resolution is not required, a mere executive order will suffice for the judges’ restoration. As Aitzaz asserted recently, the Army House would be besieged in the event of the Presidency trying to sabotage the political efforts of the winning parties.

It is possible that the biggest threat to the winning parties’ agenda could come, not from the presidential camp, but from within their own ranks. The choice of the PPP’s candidate for premiership has become a bone of contention within the party’s leadership that could create a possible rift within its upper echelons. While it seemed certain that Makhdoom Amin Fahim would get the post earlier, his prospects appear to be growing bleaker by the day. Rumors abound regarding his ties with the President, leading some in the PML-N to voice their mistrust of the Pir from Hala. Moreover, Asif Zardari’s personal premiership aspirations appear to be influencing his proclivities towards appointing a lesser political personality, such as Chaudhry Ahmed Mukhtar as the temporary PM, to pave the way for his ascent to the throne in the upcoming by-elections. The ramifications of such a decision could be immense and costly.

The possibility of Amin Fahim leading a breakaway faction away from the main body of the PPP could spell the end of the winning parties’ parliamentary aspirations, cloud the political future of the PPP and generate much jubilation in the Presidency. Although the Makhdoom has denied any such plans, it is a possibility that the leadership of the PPP and PML-N must carefully guard against if they wish to achieve their stated aims of strengthening democracy and delivering the country from the throes of military dictatorship. Mr. Zardari, in particular, must realize that his newfound popularity will not survive the test of time if he cannot shelve his personal ambitions for the sake of the country.

The problems that await the winning parties upon the formation of government are immense. The economy has been reduced to tatters, the deprivation of the masses is at an all-time high, the ravages of the war of terror have found their way to the core of the civilian populace and the federation’s unity stands threatened. The pre-requisites of a progressive democratic order need to be established without delay in order to move towards the resolution of our many crises.

But first things first; let’s get the judges back in their courts.

[Source: http://pakistanmartiallaw.blogspot.com]

Good Bye Mr. Musharraf

Mr Musharraf! It has been eight long years, since you took over the reigns of this country and it took you two elections, one referendum and a lot of political wheeling and dealing to reach, where you are standing today. I can still remember the year 1999, when you had your differences with Mian Sahib. At that time, most people thought that a coup d’état was almost impossible, looking at Mian Sahib’s past record and considering the times we were in. But you proved them wrong. You did the unexpected and you continued doing that ever since.

As a conscientious citizen of the 21st century, I have always had a deep affiliation with democratic values and norms and was thus sceptical about your government right from the beginning. However, being an optimist, I have always looked for the silver lining. And so I thought, mistakenly enough, that under your leadership we’ll probably be able to sail through those seas, which have so far been declared unchartered territories and achieve certain milestones which we could not even dream of during the previous decade of political governments. Unlike the political forces, I thought, you would not have any political obligations or vulnerabilities. I started to believe that the dream of Kalabagh Dam would see the light of the day. I thought that the voice of our fellow countrymen from Balochistan would finally get heard and I somehow thought that under your able leadership, we’ll finally make peace with our next door neighbors.

What I got though, was a severe power crisis, a much bleaker situation in Balochistan and even a more terrible state of affairs on our western border. I wonder what held you from looking into these critical issues and settling them once and for all. In your shadow, I saw a new face of accountability, a quest for transparency and a dream of corruption-free Pakistan. I thought that the days of exploitation of masses by the politicians were over and it was time for a massive cleanup. My excitement, as I found out later, was short-lived. To my utter surprise, very soon I witnessed the same politicians rubbing shoulders with you, who were nabbed by your own government, in its early days, on corruption charges. Was accountability a mere rhetoric or the need for political legitimacy was so intense that it motivated you to change your very stance about governance?

With an unprecedented liberal media policy, you emerged as the new godfather of freedom of expression, setting a new example of tolerance and writing a new chapter in the history of the Pakistani media. I witnessed a mushroom growth of new television channels and this new face of media became the hallmark of your government.This could very well have been a jewel in your throne, something that you would always be remembered for. But then came the fatal November 3, wiping off everything that you have ever done on the media front. Earlier this year, I watched your speech at Davos with keen interest and heard your claims about media liberalisation in Pakistan. I wonder, how taking all the channels off air comes under liberalization by any stretch of imagination. But then may be I am not imaginative enough. I can remember what Kahlil

Gibran said:
You delight in laying down laws, / Yet you delight more in breaking them.

Like children playing by the ocean who build sand-towers with / constancy and then destroy them with laughter.

I wonder why you destroyed your very own sand towers. Was it the circumstances? But if the unfavourable circumstances could change your ideology and compel you to undo your own achievements, why didn’t they force you to resign?

Mr Musharraf! You come from an armed forces background and army is indeed the best, if not the only, institution of Pakistan, enjoying great independence. I was sure that coming from such a background you would have great regard for institutions and you would always stand up for their independence. I wonder though, if that was the case, why was the whole judicial structure demolished during your era?

And now, when the political situation has taken a new turn, the masses have voted against you and the new power brokers seem unwilling to accept you, it seems that you are not inclined to go. I can understand that it is difficult for anybody to leave the top slot of the country, but I also expect that you would only stay if it is in our best national interest, as you have always claimed, and not for your own self. While I greatly appreciate your intentions and understand that eight years may be too little a time for you to bring about a visible change, I still cannot comprehend that how exactly would you make a difference now?

Even if you remain at the presidency, the new political order does not seem to have a significant place for you. If you accept to be in a merely ceremonial position, what good can you do, despite all your good wishes? And if that is unacceptable to you, which is highly unlikely as indicated by your repeated statements about your fondness for democracy, what would you exactly do about it? If you can’t make a difference, is this presidency worth your while?

Mr Musharraf! May be its time for you to make way for the new. May be its time for you to welcome a new democratic order. May be its time for you to bid farewell to almost a decade of your absolute unchallenging rule over this country of 160 million people. But before you go, let us thank you for something really worthwhile that you have done for us. Thank you Mr Musharraf, for returning our leaders to us, with a new face and a new promise for national reconciliation. Thank you for producing a new lot of dynamic and tall leaders like Aitzaz. Thank you for waking the civil society of this country and thank you for teaching us the value of an independent judiciary.

[Courtesy: PKPOLITICS.COM]

Musharraf seeks deal to remain in power

By Farhan Bokhari in Islamabad

Published: March 13 2008 02:00 | Last updated: March 13 2008 02:00

Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf has offered to give up key powers in order to placate opposition parties bent on removing him, the Financial Times has learned.

In what observers said was a sign of increasing desperation, Mr Musharraf has offered to give up the right to dissolve parliament if key political opponents agree to drop their insistence on the re-instatement of Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhary, the former chief justice of the supreme court.

The offer marks the most significant concession by Pakistan's pro-US ruler since his party was comprehensively defeated in last month's parliamentary elections.

"[The power to dissolve parliament] is the most potent weapon in Musharraf's arsenal. His offer to forgo that weapon means that he is getting desperate," said a senior government official familiar with the negotiations.

Details of Mr Musharraf's offer were revealed to the FT by key members of the Pakistan People's party (PPP) of the late former prime minister, Benazir Bhutto, and the Pakistan Muslim League - Nawaz (PML-N).

The PPP and PML-N, which form a majority in the 342 seat national assembly, have agreed to restore to their posts all the judges - including Mr Chaudhary - dismissed by Mr Musharraf within hours of his imposing emergency rule in November.

Mr Musharraf sacked Mr Chaudhary just before the judge was due to rule on a challenge to Mr Musharraf's decision in October to contest the presidential election while serving as army chief. Mr Musharraf stepped down as head of the military in November. Constitutional experts say Mr Musharraf's presidential contest was in violation of a law that requires all civil servants, including the army chief, to wait two years before running for political office.

"The danger for the president is that Iftikhar Chaudhary's return as chief justice [would] immediately see him return to the cases against Musharraf. It is possible that the presidential election may be declared null and void," said a senior opposition leader who is also a member of the newly elected parliament.

"Musharraf's conciliatory offer is a desperate effort for him to stay in power."

Under the constitution, Mr Musharraf retains the right to dissolve parliament, appoint an interim administration for about three months and oversee fresh elections. Critics say these powers to dissolve parliament have been frequently abused.

Analysts believe he faces intense dangers from the new parliament. Husain Haqqani, a professor of international studies at Boston university, said: "If Musharraf agrees to becoming a figurehead president, maybe he can survive for now. But if he insists on being all powerful, his political future is in jeopardy."

Nasim Zehra, a respected political commentator, said: "It is clear that Pakistan is embarking irreversibly on the road to greater democracy . . . The era of one-man rule is ending."

[Source: http://www.ft.com/]

US yearns for Pak capitulation

By Shireen M Mazari

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan has given them bases and logistic support as well as intelligence sharing but what the US is now demanding from Islamabad has shocked the Defence and Foreign Ministries and the initial reaction has been a rejection of what are highly intrusive demands for the US military and auxiliary personnel in Pakistan.

This scribe has learnt of the latest set of 11 demands the US has put to the Government of Pakistan through the Ministry of Defence. As one goes down the list of the demands, they become increasingly untenable.

The first demand is for granting of a status that is accorded to the technical and administrative staff of the US embassy. The second demand is that these personnel be allowed to enter and exit Pakistan on mere National Identification (for example a driving licence) that is without any visas.

Next, the US is demanding that Pakistan accept the legality of all US licences, which would include arms licences. This is followed by the demand that all these personnel be allowed to carry arms and wear uniforms as they wish, across the whole of Pakistan.

Then comes a demand that directly undermines our sovereignty – that the US criminal jurisdiction be applicable in Pakistan to US nationals. In other words, these personnel would not be subject to Pakistani law.

In territories of US allies like Japan, this condition exists in areas where there are US bases and has become a source of major resentment in Japan, especially because there are frequent cases of US soldiers raping Japanese women and getting away with it. In the context of Pakistan, the demand to make the US personnel above the Pakistani law would not be limited to any one part of the country! So the Pakistani citizens will become fair game for US military personnel as well as other auxiliary staff like ...

Full story @ http://thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=13430

Pakistan's New Parliament Must Act Urgently, Says Amnesty International

WASHINGTON, DC - February 19 - Tim Parritt, deputy director of Amnesty International's Asia-Pacific program, released the following statement today urging Pakistan's new Parliament to take urgent steps to restore an independent judiciary, ensure the release of illegally detained lawyers and judges, and restore the constitution to its pre-emergency state. Comments by T. Kumar, Amnesty International USA advocacy director for Asia and the Pacific, are included as well. "The Pakistan People's Party and the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz, who secured at least half the seats in Parliament, have an historic opportunity to ensure a full restoration of respect for human rights in Pakistan. "The new Parliament must show that it will listen to its people who have given it a powerful mandate for change. By shouldering this responsibility and exercising political will, they can bring an end to the cycle of violence and abuses that have affected Pakistan for decades. "As a priority, Parliament must commit itself to reversing the changes introduced in the constitution during the emergency period. It must ensure that the constitutional protection of human rights may not be suspended by military or other unilateral executive interventions in future." "Amnesty International is calling upon the Bush administration to take this opportunity to emphasize the independence of the judiciary. The administration should publically call for the reinstatement of Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhary and other justices who were unconstitutionally dismissed by President Musharraf and placed under house arrest," added T. Kumar. Amnesty International believes that the new Parliament and future government must: Release the lawyers and judges who have been illegally detained; Reinstate the judges of the superior judiciary who were punitively and unconstitutionally dismissed in November 2007; Uphold the independence of the judiciary at all times; And, ratify and implement international human rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Convention Against Torture and Convention against Enforced Disappearances. [Source: http://www.commondreams.org/news2008/0219-02.htm]

Palestinian homes demolished without warning

The Israeli army demolished more homes in Palestinian villages in the occupied West Bank on Tuesday morning. The homes and property of Palestinian families in the villages of Hadidiya, Jiftlik and Furush Beit Dajan, in the Jordan Valley area of the occupied West Bank, were demolished.

Amnesty International's researcher on Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories witnessed the demolitions. Donatella Rovera described the scene:

"In all the places, most of the people are children. These homes mostly have three generations – the grandparents, parents and children. In Hadidiya, there were four families, in Furush Beit Dajan, five families.

"All of the people have had homes demolished before, but this time they had no warning. The people were very, very upset. They were running to get their things out of their homes, but the bulldozer just went on demolishing."

Soldiers of the Israeli army arrived early in the morning in jeeps accompanied by a bulldozer and then demolished the buildings where the four families were living. The destroyed properties belonged to Mohammed Fahed Bani Odeh, Mohammed Ali Shaikh Bani Odeh, Ali Shaikh Musleh Bani Odeh and Omar 'Arif Mohammed Bisharat and their families – at least 34 people, including some 26 children.

After destroying these homes, the soldiers moved on to destroy homes and livelihoods in Jiftlik and Furush Beit Dajan, where homes have previously been demolished in recent months.

"In Jiftlik, they are destroying a farm – it is one of the rare farms here and there is otherwise not much livelihood for the people. They first bulldozed the vegetable area a couple of months ago; then they bulldozed the home last month," said Donatella Rovera.

"The family of Mahmud Mat'ab Da'ish, his wife and seven children were given a tent by the Red Cross and they started planting vegetables again. Today, the army has been bulldozing the green plants.

"In all three locations the soldiers haven't allowed us to get near, I don't even know if they have a military order to destroy everything - we asked them but they didn't show us anything."

The families in Hadidiya have lived in the same area for generations, herding sheep and goats and cultivating land on the Jordan hills. They have come under increasing pressure from the Israeli army to leave the area. The same four families had their homes destroyed in February this year and other homes were demolished several times by the Israeli army in 2007.

The demolitions are part of intensified efforts by the Israeli army to expel Palestinians from the area of the Jordan Valley. Much of the Jordan Valley, including the Hadidiya area, has been designated by the Israeli authorities as a "closed military area" and the army has been exerting increased pressure on local Palestinian villagers to force them to out of the area.

For years, the Israeli authorities have pursued a policy of discriminatory house demolition, on the one hand allowing scores of Israeli settlements to be built on occupied Palestinian land, in breach of international law, while simultaneously confiscating Palestinian lands, refusing building permits for Palestinians and destroying their homes. The land vacated has often been used to build illegal Israeli settlements. International law forbids occupying powers from settling their own citizens in the territories they occupy.

The demolitions come one day after the Israeli government came under international criticism for approving the construction of hundreds of new houses for Israelis in the Givat Ze'ev settlement north of Jerusalem. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged the government to "halt settlement expansion" in the West Bank. Javier Solana, the European Union (EU)'s foreign policy chief, said the EU opposed the move to expand the settlement.

[Source: http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/news/]

Zardari's Role in Pakistan Politics

By Tanveer Jafri

1988 will always be remembered as an important political year in history of India & Pakistan. This was the age, when after the death of his mother Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi became the youngest Prime Minister of India. At the same time Benazir Bhutto was ruling as the youngest Prime Minister in the neighbouring country Pakistan. Not only this, Benazir Bhutto became the first ever woman Prime Minister of any Islamic country.

This was the time, when the world looked with expectations towards the youngest Prime Ministers of India & Pakistan as they were young, attractive, liberal & secular. In India, Rajiv Gandhi ruled over India from 1984 to 1989 & Begum Benazir Bhutto ruled over Pakistan from 1988 to 1990 & again from 1993 to 1996. The year 1988-89 was the period when these youngest ever Prime Ministers were ruling over both the neighbouring countries. I remember the lines written by a poet in the editorial columns of a prominent Indian newspaper in connection with Rajiv Gandhi & Begum Bhutto:-

Kaisi Taqdeer Tune Paai Hai, Terey Haathon ko Kya Lakeer Mili,

Pahle Kursi Mili Hukumat ki, phir Padosan Bhi Benazir Mili, means?

'What a luck you have got, what the lines in your hands you got,

First you got the chair of power, Then Benazir (incredible) as a neighbour you got'

Anyhow, at present the political scene in these both countries have completely changed. But a great similarity can be seen in this change. Both Rajiv Gandhi & Benazir Bhutto sacrificed their lives because of terrorism. Here the congressmen in India gave full regards to Mrs. Sonia Gandhi, the widow of Rajiv Gandhi & elected her as the President of the Congress Party & on the other side, Zardari, who is the widower of Begum Bhutto, has been elected as the acting president of the Pakistan Peoples Party. Now, there are guesses that Zardari may be the Prime Minister of Pakistan. So because of the similar political situation, many political analysts are not only comparing the politics of India & Pakistan but they are comparing Sonia Gandhi & Asif Ali Zardari also. The main reason of this comparison is that as Congress is the largest political party in Central Government of India & there is the present UPA government in power under the leadership of Congress. The political observers feel that despite the fact that Dr. Manmohan Singh is the Prime Minister of UPA government that is ruling the Central government, but he takes the advice of Sonia Gandhi before taking any major political step.

As the role of Sonia Gandhi is being valued more than that of the Prime Minister & on the other hand similar situations are arising out in Pakistan. Benazir Bhutto has been assassinated. As her son Bilawal Bhutto Zardari is a minor for active politics, so her widower Asif Ali Zardari is the successor of Begum Bhutto, this time. The fresh elections held in Pakistan verify the same & clear that the Pakistan Peoples Party of Benazir Bhutto is the largest political party in Pakistan. Now in Pakistan, under the fresh circumstances, the PPP & the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) the parties that were against each other, have now decided to make a coalition government. Under this agreement, the post of Prime Minister will remain for the Pakistan Peoples Party. Besides this, the posts of the Speaker & Vice President of Pakistan National Assembly will go in favour of the PPP. Whereas the post of the speaker & the deputy speaker in the assembly of Punjab state will go to Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz).

Under the above circumstances, when Asif Ali Zardari has declared to be not in the race of the Prime Minister & Nawaz Sharif is not going to be the Prime Minister, will there be a Prime Minister of independent thoughts & that too nominated by PPP? Or the Prime Minister that will dance on the tunes of Asif Ali Zardari as a rubber stamp? Or Zardari himself would be the future of Pakistan as a P.M.? Regarding Kashmir, Zardari in his fresh statement has tried to give a message that he will try to strengthen the relations between India & Pakistan & the complicated issue of Kashmir will be kept aside. Now, as far as Sonia Gandhi is concerned, her political status can be guessed that she was declared worlds second most powerful woman. In India, from Kashmir to Kanyakumari, wherever the Congress has its base, there is special affection of the people for Sonia Gandhi, the widow of Rajiv Gandhi & specially the Nehru Gandhi family. After leaving her country & her culture, Sonia Gandhi has taken care of the political heredity of Rajiv Gandhi, is a rare example of sacrifice in the world. This is the reason that the blame of opposition of calling the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh a shadow Prime Minister keeps no value. After being elected as the Prime Minister, Sonia Gandhi sacrificed this chair & didn't take oath. This is the rarest example of political sacrifice. This made her, the apple of eyes, for the people of India.

Asif Ali Zardari is also being compared to Sonia Gandhi in Pakistan. Asif Ali Zardari, who belongs to the Shia family, was born on July 21, 1956 in Karachi, in the family of industrialists. His father Hakim Ali Zardari was a famous industrialist in Pakistan Zardari was married to Benazir Bhutto on December 18, 1987. The father of three children, Asif Ali Zardari remained a member of the Pakistan National Assembly & again the minister for environment when Begum Bhutto was Prime Minister for the second time. In 1990, Zardari was arrested under a false case of blackmailing an industrialist Murtaza Bukhari & withdrawing money from his account. But in 1993, when Begum Bhutto again came in power, all the cases were withdrawn. During this period, Zardari took oath as the Minister for Environment, under Begum Bhutto. During this period too, Zardari was accused of embezzlement of millions of rupees. Zardari did this, under the planning of plantation movement throughout Pakistan. It is now wrong to say that Zardari was so much involved in the corruption, when he was Environment Minister, that he was called as Mr. Ten Percent. Zardari has to remain in jail from 1997 to 2004 because of the accusation of corruption & murder. Today Zardari is not only owner of a big & beautiful golf ground in Islamabad but has many industrial, residential & agricultural properties in Pakistan also. He has grand residential properties & farm houses in Dubai & Manhattan. He is accused of storing the 4.35 dollars property in England, through his corruption money.

There may be similar political conditions in India & Pakistan but political comparison in these two countries is not possible. In India, a dictator can't oust the elected democratic government. There are no serious accusations of corruption against any high profile political person. And above all, it is misfortunate that a person like Zardari is going to be the future of Pakistan. The two opponents of Musharraf may have joined hands against Musharraf. As the decision of Parvez Musharraf of ousting Nawaz Sharif from power, can't be said right, in the same way the person like Asif Ali Zardari, who is totally involved in corruption how can be accepted as king maker or future of Pakistan.

Tanveer Jafri is a columnist based in India. He is related with hundreds of most popular daily news papers/portals in India and abroad. Jafri, Almost writes in the field of communal harmony, world peace, anti communalism, anti terrorism, national integration, national & international politics etc.He is a devoted social activist for world peace, unity, integrity & global brotherhood. Tanveer Jafri is also a member of Haryana Sahitya Academy & Haryana Urdu Academy (state govt. bodies in India). Thousands articles of the author have been published in different newspapers, websites & newsportals throughout the world. He is also a receipent of so many awards in the field of Communal Harmony & other social activities.

[Source: http://newsblaze.com/story]

Awan-e-Saddar agree on reinstatement of deposed judges

ISLAMABAD: Awan-e-Saddar has agreed with Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) and Pakistan Muslim League (N) over their stand of reinstatement of the deposed judges, the sources said.

As per the new development, the troika agreed that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Chaudhry Muhammad Iftikar and other deposed judges of the Supreme Court and High Court will be reinstated.

In return, the PPP and PML-N will support President Musharraf will continue as president for one year and after that he will quit the highest office of the country, the sources claimed.

[Source: http://www.geo.tv/home/15185.htm]

Lawyers threaten to beseige Musharraf official residence

Islamabad (PTI): Pakistan's lawyers have threatened to besiege Army House - the official residence of President Pervez Musharraf - if the presidency tries to sabotage efforts by the PPP-PML-N coalition to reinstate judges deposed during last year's emergency.

In a crucial meeting held in Murree last week, the PPP and PML-N agreed to reinstate the deposed judges within 30 days of the formation of their government.

Supreme Court Bar Association president Aitzaz Ahsan, who is also a PPP leader, said yesterday that lawyers would march to Rawalpindi and besiege the Army House if the president tried to sabotage steps to reinstate the pre-emergency judiciary.

He asked judges of superior courts not to become party to what he called "conspiracies being hatched at the Aiwan-i-Sadar (presidency)".

Traders have assured their support to lawyers in their struggle for the independence of the judiciary and they could give a call for a countrywide strike, he warned.

Ahsan said that though there was no need for a parliamentary resolution to reinstate the deposed judges, such a resolution would provide strength to the executive and the government in the implementation of the decision made by the PPP and PML-N.

[http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/000200803131421.htm]

"We're slowly but surely taking control of that country, so that we free the people of Iraq," - Bush, March 23, 2003

Soon the Iraqi people will see the great compassion of not only the United States, but other nations around the world who care deeply about the human condition inside that country,"

Bush at Pentagon Briefing, March 25, 2003

[Source: http://www.marchforjustice.com]

Images of the backwash of Musharraf's fighting US's proxy war in Pakistan

A view of the badly damaged building of The Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) after a powerful bomb explosion in Lahore on March 11, 2008. At least 23 people were killed by two bombs that ripped through a federal police office and an advertising agency in the Pakistani city of Lahore. The blasts were the latest in a wave of violence across Pakistan that has left more than 600 people dead this year.

Pakistani rescue workers remove a dead body from the site of a suicide bombing at the office of the Federal Investigation Agency, Tuesday, March 11, 2008, in Lahore.

Pakistani rescue workers evacuate an injured man from the site of a bomb explosion at the office of the Federal Investigation Agency in Lahore.

Pakistani rescue workers and security officials gather at the site of suicide bombing in the office of Federal Investigation Agency, Tuesday, March 11, 2008 in Lahore.

IRAQ: Childhood Is Dying

By Dahr Jamail and Ahmed Ali*


BAQUBA, Mar 10 (IPS) - Iraq's children have been more gravely affected by the U.S. occupation than any other segment of the population.

The United Nations estimated that half a million Iraqi children died during more than 12 years of economic sanctions that preceded the U.S. invasion of March 2003, primarily as a result of malnutrition and disease.

But childhood malnutrition in Iraq has increased 9 percent since then, according to an Oxfam International report released last July.

A report from the non-governmental relief organisation Save the Children shows Iraq continues to have the highest mortality for children under five. Since the first Gulf War, this has increased 150 percent. It is estimated that one in eight children in Iraq dies before the fifth birthday: 122,000 children died in 2005 alone. Iraq has a population of about 25 million.

According to a UN Children's Fund report released this month, "at least two million Iraqi children lack adequate nutrition, according to the World Food Programme assessment of food insecurity in 2006, and face a range of other threats including interrupted education, lack of immunisation services and diarrhoea diseases."

IPS interviewed three children from different districts of Baquba, the capital city of Iraq's volatile Diyala province, 40 km northeast of Baghdad.

Firas Muhsin is seven, and lives in Baquba with his mother. His father was killed two years ago by militants who shot him in his shop.

Firas attends school four hours every day near his house. On rare occasions he gets to play with neighbours' children, but always under the eyes of his mother.

Firas is allowed to move no more than ten metres from the house; his mother is afraid of strangers. Kidnapping of Iraqi children is common now, and many are believed to have been sold as child labourers or as sex workers.

Iraqi officials and aid workers have recently expressed concern over the alarming rate at which children are disappearing countrywide in Iraq's unstable environment.

Omar Khalif is vice-president of the Iraqi Families Association (IFA), an NGO established in 2004 to register cases of the missing and trafficked. He told reporters in January that on average at least two Iraqi children are sold by their parents every week. In addition, another four are reported missing every week.

"The numbers are alarming," Khalif said. "There is an increase of 20 percent in the reported cases of missing children over a year."

Firas spends hours each day sitting at the door looking at people. The door is his only outlet. In the afternoon, his mother calls him inside to do his homework. After dinner, his big hope is to watch cartoons -- if there is electricity from their private generator.

The mother faces a shortage of kerosene needed just for heating. "My children feel cold and I cannot afford kerosene," she told IPS.

Many children Firas's age do not get to school at all. According to the UN, 17 percent of Iraqi children are permanently out of primary school, and an estimated 220,000 more are missing school because they and their families have been displaced. That adds up to 760,000 children out of primary school in 2006.

These are in-country figures, and do not include the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children and youth whose education is interrupted or ended because their families have fled to other countries. UNHCR estimates that at least 2.25 million Iraqis have fled their country.

Qusay Ameen is five, and lives with his mother, father, two sisters and a brother. His father was a sergeant in the former military, and is now unemployed. He receives a monthly pension of 110 dollars. He tries to support the family by selling cigarettes on the roadside. Qusay's mother is a housekeeper. Qusay hopes to begin school next year when he turns six.

After breakfast, always something simple like fried tomato with bread, Qusay wants to play, but he has nothing to play with but a small broken plastic car his brother found near the neighbour's door. He spends most of the morning playing with this car. He seems happiest when he gets to visit his neighbour's house, because they have a swing in the garden.

Like most Iraqi children now, Qusay has grown used to being in need. He rarely gets sweets, or new clothes.

The family house is incredibly small -- one bedroom and a place used as both kitchen and bathroom. Everyone sleeps in one room, which is extremely cold through the winter months. There are not enough beds or covering, and everyone has to sleep close together for warmth.

The house has few basic necessities, and of course no television or useful household appliances. There is a small kerosene cooker used for both cooking and heating.

According to the UN Children's Fund, only 40 percent of children nationwide have access to safe drinking water, and only 20 percent of people outside Baghdad have a working sewerage service. About 75,000 children are among families living in temporary shelters.

Ali Mahmood, 6, has lived with his uncle in Baquba after his parents were killed by a mortar explosion two years ago in random shelling by militants. Next year he will join primary school near his uncle's house.

Ali's days are alike, and quiet. His only friends are his uncle's children. When they go to school, he simply spends his time alone. It does seem the uncle's family is not able to look after him as well as his own might have. His uncle Thamir is doing his best, but life is difficult, and Thamir has responsibility for a big family.

Ali is deprived of just about everything in childhood; he has no place to play, or things to play with. And he has nobody to think of his future.

And already, he has responsibilities waiting; he has been told he must take care of his younger brother when he grows up.

Firas, Qusay and Ali are all children, but none the way children should be.

(*Ahmed, our correspondent in Iraq's Diyala province, works in close collaboration with Dahr Jamail, our U.S.-based specialist writer on Iraq who has reported extensively from Iraq and the Middle East) (END/2008)

[Source: http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=41524]

U.S. economy could fall casualty to wars

A boy rests at an Iraqi refugee camp in June. Economists say it's hard to calculate the social costs of war.

The flow of blood may be ebbing, but the flood of money into the Iraq war is steadily rising, new analyses show.

In 2008, its sixth year, the war will cost approximately $12 billion a month, triple the "burn" rate of its earliest years, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and co-author Linda J. Bilmes report in a new book.

Beyond 2008, working with "best-case" and "realistic-moderate" scenarios, they project the Iraq and Afghan wars, including long-term U.S. military occupations of those countries, will cost the U.S. budget between $1.7 trillion and $2.7 trillion -- or more -- by 2017.

Interest on money borrowed to pay those costs could alone add $816 billion to that bottom line, they say.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has done its own projections and comes in lower, forecasting a cumulative cost by 2017 of $1.2 trillion to $1.7 trillion for the two wars, with Iraq generally accounting for three-quarters of the costs.

Variations in such estimates stem from the sliding scales of assumptions, scenarios and budget items that are counted. But whatever the estimate, the cost will be huge, the auditors of the Government Accountability Office say.

In a January 30 report to Congress, the GAO observed that the U.S. will be committing "significant" future resources to the wars, "requiring decision makers to consider difficult trade-offs as the nation faces an increasing long-range fiscal challenge."

These numbers don't include the war's cost to the rest of the world. In Iraq itself, the 2003 U.S.-led invasion -- with its devastating air bombardments -- and the looting and arson that followed, severely damaged electricity and other utilities, the oil industry, countless factories, hospitals, schools and other underpinnings of an economy.

No one has tried to calculate the economic damage done to Iraq, said spokesman Niels Buenemann of the International Monetary Fund, which closely tracks national economies. But millions of Iraqis have been left without jobs, and hundreds of thousands of professionals, managers and other middle-class ...

Continue reading @ http://edition.cnn.com/

Restoring the judges

By Ahmad Faruqui

WITH those words, 19th century British statesman William Gladstone coined a phrase that has echoed in political and legal discourse ever since. Indeed, he could have been speaking about Pakistan today. A miscarriage of justice took place in Islamabad exactly one year and one day ago. It has not been rectified.

The defining moment for the incoming, popularly elected government will come when it tackles the issue. It should think of the constitutional legacy of Quaid-i-Azam M.A. Jinnah, who was also one of the subcontinent’s finest attorneys. The Quaid would have been proud of the role played by Iftikhar Chaudhry, Aitzaz Ahsan, Munir Malik and their cohorts in last year’s movement for judicial independence.

They are the real heroes of 2007. Their deeds inspired the Black Coat Revolution when thousands of attorneys took to the streets in defence of civil law and in defiance of martial law. Without their courage and exemplary conduct, which has won global acclaim, there would have been no democratic revolution on Feb 18.

Unfortunately, even though three weeks have elapsed since the general elections, the need to restore the 63 judges is not visible in the political agenda of the electoral winners. This lack of priority may well be the handiwork of the Bush administration. It continues to meddle in Pakistani politics even though the electorate voted overwhelmingly against the King’s party, in large measure because Musharraf was seen to be an American puppet.

The White House, depressed at the electoral outcome, is doing its utmost to salvage the Musharraf presidency. That is the view of many including Barbara Boxer, a US Senator from California. She is aghast that while Washington is busy spending billions of dollars in Iraq to set up a judiciary, it is taking no action to help restore the judiciary in a country which already has one. Ms Boxer poses a rhetorical question: “Imagine what would happen if President Bush went to the microphone and said: ‘Today I’m firing the Supreme Court and all the judges can go home!’” She opines that the Bush administration has concluded that re-seating the deposed judges would lead to Musharraf’s ...

Continue reading @ http://www.dawn.com/2008/03/10/op.htm

Much ado about women’s rights

By Amber Darr

THE Protection of Women (Criminal Laws Amendment) Act, 2006 enacted on Dec 1, 2006 was the culmination of more than twenty-seven years of protests against the Zina and Qazf Ordinances.

Its avowed aim was to bring these ordinances in conformity with the injunctions of Islam and the principles of social justice enshrined in the Constitution. Although it may be interesting to assess whether and to what extent the Act fulfils these objectives, it is perhaps more important to determine what it actually does to protect women.

In the fifteen months since its enactment, no cases have been decided under the Act and its provisions remain judicially untested. Does the absence of reported cases suggest that women are now better protected? To answer this question it is nearly as important to trace the circumstances surrounding the genesis of the Act, as it is to understand its provisions.

The Act amends the Zina and Qazf Ordinances promulgated during the wave of Islamisation in the late 1970s. These ordinances had dramatically altered the law relating to adultery, rape, kidnapping a woman for marriage and buying and selling a minor for prostitution. Interestingly, despite their Islamic underpinnings, these edicts applied to Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

The Zina Ordinance replaced the offences of adultery and rape with Zina and Zina-bil-jabr respectively. Unlike adultery and rape for which only men could be held liable, for Zina and Zina-bil-jabr both men and women were liable to the punishment of Hadd, which entailed whipping or even stoning to death.

This punishment however could only be awarded if four male, adult Muslim eyewitnesses gave testimony against the accused (absurdly for non-Muslim accused only non-Muslim eyewitnesses would suffice). If however the requisite number of eyewitnesses were not available the accused could only be punished with the maximum imprisonment of ten years for Zina and twenty-five years for Zina-bil-jabr. Also, if it transpired in the course of Zina proceedings that the accusation had been false, the false accuser could only be punished in independent proceedings initiated under the Qazf Ordinance.

The provisions of the Zina and Qazf Ordinances had the potential to work against women and did, particularly when a woman married against the will of her family or when she was raped. A woman who married of her own choice could be falsely accused of Zina by her family members and be prosecuted if she failed to produce a nikahnama. A victim of rape could find herself being punished for Zina because she had not raised sufficient hue and cry against her aggressor.

And, a woman who was gang-raped could watch her aggressors walk free because the Zina Ordinance did not prescribe a ...

Continue reading @ http://www.dawn.com/2008/03/08/op.htm#1

Chief Justice Tere Jan Nisaar, Beshumaar Beshumaar

Pakistani lawyers shout slogans during an anti-President Pervez Musharraf protest rally near the residence of detained Supreme Court Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, in Islamabad on March 9, 2008

Seminar ADLIA KI AZADI: AWAM KI AZADI

People's Resistance

"Adlia ki Azadi: Awam ki Azadi"

4:30 pm, March 11, 2008

PMA House, Garden Road, Karachi

The issue of justice affects all of us directly. This seminar explores why all Pakistanis should care about the restoration of an independent judiciary, and includes perspectives from everyday Pakistani citizens on why an independent judiciary matters to them.

CHIEF GUEST: Chief Justice of the Sindh High Court, Mr. Justice Sabihuddin Ahmad

Speakers include:

Women's Issues: Ms. Nazish Brohi

Students' Issues: Mr. Khurram Ali (Communist Mazdoor Kissan Party)

Media Issues: Mr. Ghazi Salahuddin

Privatization and Labour Issues: Mr. Dhani Baksh Samoon (People's Workers' Union, Pakistan Steel Mills)

PLEASE JOIN US!

To confirm, RSVP 0300 293 8550





[Courtesy The Emergency Times Blog]

March 9 Revisited

By Qaiser Rashid

March 9, 2007 has left a deep, lasting impact on the politico-social history of Pakistan. In past, where the institution of politics was found coming head on with the institution of military, this time the institution of judiciary has defied the verdict of the institution of military and hence invited its wrath. The basic premise of defiance was the rule of law. The fundamental effort now is independence of the judiciary and personification of that is being demanded in restoration of the deposed and detained judges.

Some still argue that the judicial activism was less a threat to the bureaucracy and more to the military. In the post-1999 era, the way the military pounced on other institutions, the judiciary posed first big and real challenge to the hegemony of the military in 2007. It was March 9 incident that provoked the judiciary to catapult the situation; the judiciary came out of its past subservient role to the military rulers. Subsequently, the judiciary showed its true colour till the emergency, in the name of martial law, was proclaimed on November 3, 2007.

In a country like Pakistan where the Cold War mentality is still lurking at the higher echelons of power, the ruling class yearns for every thing programmed according to its whims and wishes. For them, an independent judiciary is a hateful object for having potential for disrupting the program. It is sheer an autocratic approach of the ruling elite under the façade of democracy.

Major tussle between the then sitting government of the Prime Minister, Shaukat Aziz, and the judiciary appeared when the latter criticized and halted the process of privatization of Karachi Steel Mill. That sent shivers down the spines of those who had thought of the judiciary a subsidiary to the prime ministerial office. The judiciary had also started taking notice of the missing person cases, besides resorting to suo moto actions before March 9 visited it.

Retrospectively, March 9 happened because of two main reasons. First, avenging the insult on the Steel Mill issue, which brought the then government to disrepute, and secondly, re-evaluating...

Full story @ PKPOLITICS.COM

Pakistan Rivals Join to Fight Musharraf

By Jane Perlez

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — The leaders of the two major political parties, in an unexpectedly strong show of unity against President Pervez Musharraf, agreed Sunday that they would reinstate judges fired by the president and would seek to strip him of crucial powers.

The power sharing deal, announced by Asif Ali Zardari, the leader of the largest party, the Pakistan Peoples Party, and Nawaz Sharif, the head of the Pakistan Muslim League-N, represented another tough challenge to the already waning authority of Mr. Musharraf, a favorite ally of the Bush administration.

The two men, appearing at a news conference together in the resort area of Bhurban, said they would seek to remove the president’s power to dissolve the Pakistani Parliament and his power to appoint the chiefs of the military services. Together, the two parties control just shy of two-thirds of the Parliament after an election last month in which Mr. Musharraf’s party was routed.

The agreement settled key differences that had clouded the post-election atmosphere.

Mr. Zardari, the widower of the slain party leader, Benazir Bhutto, had appeared to waver on Mr. Sharif’s insistence that the judges be reinstated.

For his part, Mr. Sharif had indicated that members of his party would not sit in the cabinet while Mr. Musharraf remained in power.

But on Sunday, Mr. Sharif, reading in English a “summit declaration” said: “The coalition partners are ready to form the governments and the national and provincial assemblies should be convened immediately.”

Mr. Sharif, who was twice prime minister in the 1990s, said his party would participate in a cabinet that would be dominated by Mr. Zardari’s choices. He appeared to swallow the idea that his cabinet members would have to take the oath of office from...

Full story @ New York Times

It is now proven time and again that a dictator should never be allowed to run the affairs...

Protestors flee a cloud of tear gas near the home of the deposed Chief Justice, Iftikar Chaudry, on March 9, 2008 in Islamabad Pakistan. Police used tear gas to disperse protestors attempting to reach the home of the Chief Justice who has been under house arrest since President Musharraf imposed emergency rule in November 2007. Lawyers, political opposition and activists observed "Black Flag Week", marking the year-long struggle for the independence of Pakistan's judiciary after President Musharraf sacked the Chief Justice in 2007.

Pakistani demonstrators try to remove the barbed wire placed at the entrance of the residence of country's deposed chief justice Iftikhar Mahmood Chaudhry during a protest in Islamabad, Pakistan on Sunday, March 9, 2008. Police fired tear gas at protesters outside the residence of Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry, the chief justice whom Musharraf suspended exactly one year earlier and accused of conspiring against him.

Pakistani lawyers try to escape from tear gas fired by police officers outside the residence of country's deposed chief justice Iftikhar Mahmood Chaudhry during a protest in Islamabad, Pakistan on Sunday, March 9, 2008. Police fired tear gas at protesters outside the residence of Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry, the chief justice whom Musharraf suspended exactly one year earlier and accused of conspiring against him.

A lawyer holding a black flag walks amongst tear gas, fired by police, during a protest against Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf, near the residence of deposed Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, in Islamabad March 9, 2008.

Protestors attempt to remove barbed wire blocking the road leading to the home of the deposed Chief Justice, Iftikar Chaudry, on March 9, 2008 in Islamabad Pakistan