World Political Blog » Judge

Debate in the US over Muslims from Chinese Uighurs

Ashish — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 03:59:23 +0000

The Guantanamo Bay prisoners and their detention is probably one of the most legally debated issues in the United States. Ever since the US action in Afghanistan in 2001, and the detention of terrorists and others from there, there has been a raging debate over their treatment. On the one hand there is the need to prevent the release of people (some of the detainees) who everybody knows are hard-core terrorists, who if released would go back to taking part in active operations against the United States and other countries. On the other hand, there is the need to ensure that all the detainees get their rights to a free trial, which is a due process of law, something that is a hallmark of a civilized society. There is no doubt that there will be some detainees who are innocent, or have committed minor crimes, and yet have been locked away for 7 years now.
The case of the 17 Uighur Muslims from China’s Xinjiang suddenly jumped into the limelight this week when a single judge ordered that they be released and brought into the United States. Now, these are detainees whom the Administration is quite clearly not going to file a case against, and who if returned back to China will almost certainly land them in clear trouble.

The United States has sent detainees back to different countries for legal processes in their countries, but given the history of China’s efforts against separatism in its Xinjiang province, there is a huge amount of belief that these detainees will be tortured if they are sent to China.

A federal appeals court on Wednesday temporarily blocked a judge’s decision to immediately free 17 Chinese Muslims at Guantanamo Bay into the U.S. In a one-page order, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued the emergency stay at the request of the Bush administration. The three-judge panel said it would postpone release of the detainees for at least another week to give the government more time to make arguments in the case. The appeals court set a deadline of next Thursday for additional filings but it is up to the judges to decide how quickly to act afterward.
Meanwhile, the Bush administration said it was continuing “heightened” efforts to find another country to accept the Uighurs, since the detainees might be tortured if they are turned over to China. “There are extensive efforts. We oppose the idea of their release here,” White House spokesman Tony Fratto said. The Justice Department criticized Urbina’s decision as undercutting immigration laws that dictate how foreigners should be brought into the country. It also cited security concerns over weapons training the Uighurs received at camps in Afghanistan. Such a potential security risk outweighs the inconvenience the detainees might suffer in waiting a while longer at Guantanamo, government lawyers contended.

In effect, since the detainees are not being accepted by any other country, and will not be sent to China, they have remained in prison for the last 4 years (after a determination that they can be released). The United States is also not willing to let them come into the country (from Guantanamo Bay where they are currently houses). A mighty complex issue.

Texas appellate court decision on children to be appealed

Ashish — Sun, 25 May 2008 09:26:13 +0000

In a decision that shocked the Texas State Government, an appellate court decision on the 22dn of May 2008 threw out the Government action in taking away children from their mothers in the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints case, whereby the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services had raided the gated compound of the Church (a known polygamist compound where there have been many cases of girls being married off when they were under-age and forced to have sex with their elder husbands) and taken away around more than 400 children from their mothers, giving a reason of their being in constant danger of being forced to marry and have relationships when they are under-age.
So, while this taking of children was being discussed in a somewhat chaotic lower court, an appellate court stepped in (in response to petitions from the mothers) and stopped proceedings in the trial court and ordered the return of children of the 38 mothers who had filed the suit. The decision by the appellate court was a severe indictment of the action of the state, essentially stating that the children were not in the peril that the state claimed; further, continuing news reports of this whole incident pointed out several problems – the state was not able to find the person who supposedly made the complainant, many of the people who were claimed to be underage were actually adult, and so on.

However, now the state is going to file a petition in the Texas Supreme Court asking for this decision to be over-turned:

Texas authorities asked the state Supreme Court on Friday to overturn a ruling that found child welfare officials had no right to take more than 400 children from a gated polygamist compound. Lawyers for the Department of Family and Protective Services also requested that the high court allow the state to keep the children in foster homes until their fate is decided. Otherwise, they said, Texas would be forced within days to return more than 120 boys and girls to sect members who have not proved they are the biological parents.
Texas authorities raided the Yearning for Zion Ranch in West Texas on April 3, after a caller claimed she was a 16-year-old bride suffering abuse at the hands of her husband, a call that since has been shown to probably be a hoax. Inside the secluded compound, child welfare officials have said, they found numerous pregnant teenagers and child brides living in a communal setting with older men, bound in “spiritual marriages.”

No matter what happens, this is likely to remain controversial. It is pretty much known that the Church’s compound had a continuing practise of polygamy (which remains illegal), and in earlier depositions, women who have escaped from the Church have claimed that they have been forced into marriage and sex.

Nawaz Sharif pulls out of Pakistani coalition

Ashish — Mon, 12 May 2008 15:10:09 +0000

President Musharraf must be smiling, nay, positively laughing. For all their political life, the parties of Nawaz Sharif (Pakistan Muslim Leadue -N) and the Pakistan People’s Party of Asif Ali Zardari have been political opponents. They came together just a few months ago when neither of them got a majority in the last elections, and they needed to deny President Musharraf the political instability; hence they made the grand decision to form a coalition. Pakistan took a sigh of relief at this prospect, and welcomes the change of having a somewhat stable parliament. However, as of now, this seems to be a mirage:

Former prime minister Nawaz Sharif said ministers from his party will resign from their posts on Tuesday over differences regarding the reinstatement of judges sacked by President Pervez Musharraf. However, he said his party would not take any decision that would strengthen what he called a “dictatorship” under Musharraf. “We will not be part of any conspiracy aimed at strengthening dictatorships,” he said.
Sharif expressed disappointment after the weekend talks with Zardari failed to resolve the deadlock. He said he made sincere efforts but the deadlock could not be broken.

It was somewhat clear from the beginning that Nawaz Sharif would push for the reinstatement of judges who were kicked out by Musharraf when he had again taken over by dismissing the constitution in the second half of last year. He was the one who had the least to lose; President Musharraf is under the threat of his election as President being challenged and maybe set aside by the previous Chief Justice. Zardari faces the risk of the law that saved him from corruption trials being rules as unlawful.
For some time it seemed that Zardari would back down and let the judges come back to the Court (none of this had resolved the logistical issues of what would happen to the existing judges on the Supreme Court); but it seems like he finally decided that he could not take the risk of his amnesty being removed – he would need the shield of that amnesty once he decides that he wants to be the Prime Minister.

Pakistan reaches settlement on judges restoration

Ashish — Sat, 03 May 2008 17:09:13 +0000

During the last crackdown by President Musharraf late last year, rattled by a judiciary that was seemingly not subservient enough to him, the dictator General had removed a number of judges of the Pakistani Supreme Court and moved them to house arrest. The authority under which this had been done ? Well, he was the President and had just done a second coup, and so what he said and wrote was law ! He was fearful that the judges would not be scare of him and order his election to be unlawful.
With the election of the 2 main opposition parties and their combined might being a majority in the assembly, it was always expected that they would bring back the sacked judges, with the only constraint being that the PPP chief Asif Ali Zardari would be a bit hesitant due to the judges picking up the earlier amnesty ordinance for consideration and for whether it is lawful or not. However, with Nawaz Sharif sticking to his demand, the case for getting the judges back had to become a reality:

The decision of Pakistan’s new ruling coalition to restore the judges sacked by President Pervez Musharraf last November has sparked both excitement and apprehension. But there are also fears that this may start a confrontation between the ruling alliance and President Musharraf, who is armed with powers to sack the government.
Some observers say the incumbent chief justice – who stands to lose his position if the sacked chief justice, Iftikhar Chaudhry, is reinstated – may be motivated to issue such injunction. Judges whose current seniority would be affected in the event of the restoration would also have a similar motive, they say.

This is a very sticky issue. What happens to the judges who remained on the court and who fear being pushed into the background if these judges are re-instated ? They will lose out badly if such a thing comes to happen. Further, it is not clear whether President Musharraf will remain quiet, or will use all his influence to prevent such a thing from happening.