Pakistan's court defends democracy

Over the weekend there was a constitutional crisis in Pakistan. Dissatisfaction with Prime Minister Imran Khan had led to a confidence vote, with a major coalition partner defecting immediately beforehand. So, to avoid losing, Khan alleged he was the victim of a US plot to oust him, had his stooge deputy speaker prevent the vote, then purported to dissolve parliament and call new elections. But today, Pakistan's Supreme Court called bullshit on that:

Pakistan’s supreme court has dealt a devastating blow to the prime minister, Imran Khan, by ruling that he acted unconstitutionally in dissolving parliament prior to a confidence vote he was expected to lose, and ordering the vote to go ahead this weekend.

In the conclusion to a hearing that has gripped Pakistan for the past four days, the chief justice of Pakistan, Umar Ata Bandial, said Khan had violated the law in his attempt to stop the vote, which was widely expected to oust him.

The verdict said Khan was wrong to instruct the deputy speaker of the house, a close ally, to suspend the vote and wrong to ask the president to dissolve parliament on Sunday morning.

The bench of five judges ordered that a session of the national assembly be held on Saturday to allow for the confidence vote to go ahead. No member of the parliament will be restricted from voting.

And so the decision on who gets to be Prime Minister will be left where it belongs: with the national assembly. As it should have been all along. There are obvious parallels with Samoa's recent constitutional crisis (where the PM who had lost an election conspired to prevent parliament from meeting, then tried to call new elections in an effort to avoid being formally voted out), but as in that case, the judiciary stepped up to defend democracy.

Meanwhile, the only protection we have against this happening in New Zealand is convention, and the courts would be prevented from intervening by parliamentary privilege and a lack of written law around the confidence / dissolution process. While our convention is strong, it only works until it doesn't. Backing it with statute is something we ought to do one day, just to ensure our democracy can face any future challenge.

New Fisk

Pakistan university assault: A warning for Turkey as Islamists turn on their old allies in Peshawar
Is Algeria’s military making its move on ageing President Bouteflika?

Justice for drone strikes?

In December 2009, a US drone strike killed the brother and son of Pakistani man Haji Abdul Karim Khan. Since then, he's been fighting for justice through the courts. And now it seems he might finally get some:

The Islamabad High Court (IHC) directed on Tuesday the Secretariat police station to register a case against former CIA station chief Jonathan Banks for his alleged role in a surgical strike that killed the family members of an anti-drone activist.

The court directed Islamabad Police Chief IGP Tahir Alam to register a case against the former CIA official for killing innocent civilians in drone strikes.

Haji Abdul Karim Khan, a native of Mirali, North Waziristan, had requested the court to register an FIR after his relatives, including his son Zahinullah and brother Asif Iqbal, and other civilians were killed in a drone attack in December 31, 2009.

The Pakistani government have apparently been dragging their feet on this, refusing to open a case because it would harm diplomatic relations. Earlier this year they even had him disappeared to prevent him from testifying to the European Parliament about drone strikes. But they're running out of places to hide. Hopefully this means that the law will be enforced, and that we'll soon see an extradition order so this CIA murderer can stand trial.

New Fisk

Who can the Saudis trust when they find themselves on Netanyahu's side?
Being coy doesn’t change the reality of modern Pakistan — a a corrupt, politically savage and physically broken society

New Fisk

Peshawar school attack: Massacre of the innocents born of ambivalence towards Taliban

No freedom of speech in Pakistan

Veena Malik is a Pakistani actor. In May this year she played a role in a historical wedding scene based on the marriage of one of Muhammed's daughters. For this, she has been sentenced to 26 years in jail for blasphemy:

Veena Malik has expressed her anger and disbelief after she was handed a 26-year jail term by a Pakistani anti-terrorism court for ‘malicious acts’ of blasphemy.

Her crime? Appearing in a pretend wedding scene, staged on a daytime show broadcast by Geo TV and based on the marriage of the Prophet Mohamed’s daughter.

The programme sparked a wave of controversy in the Islamic country when it aired in May, despite the fact similar scenes had been aired in the past to little or no such public outrage. Some even apparently suspected that Pakistan’s military were behind the mock wedding, and that it was put on in a bid to wage a blasphemy war against the broadcaster.

Malik’s husband, Asad Bashir Khan, and Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman, the chief executive of the biggest media group in the Asian country, were further sentenced to 26 years behind bars for the apparent religious offence. The host of the show Shaista Wahidi was also punished.

I'd suggest that the Pakistani courts are incapable of distinguishing between fiction and reality, but as this is a religious offence, that's a given.

New Fisk

Civilians are dying. Campaigners are being kidnapped. The world cannot turn a blind eye to America’s drone attacks in Pakistan
Proof that politics hasn’t changed

Burning the CIA

Since 2004 the CIA has been conducting a campaign of terror in Pakistan, using remotely operate drones to murder Pakistanis they believe to be associated with terrorism. Their standard for such association is low, and the drone strikes have killed a large number of innocent civilians. Amnesty International believes this indiscriminate use of force is a war crime.

The strikes are (naturally) deeply unpopular in Pakistan. And now the PTI, a party led by former cricketer Imran Khan, has . In the process, they've exposed the CIA's Islamabad station chief:

The political party led by the former cricket star Imran Khan claims to have blown the cover of the CIA's most senior officer in Pakistan as part of an increasingly high-stakes campaign against US drone strikes.

The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party named a man it claimed was head of the CIA station in Islamabad in a letter to police demanding he be nominated as one of the people responsible for a drone strike on 21 November, which killed five militants including senior commanders of the Haqqani Network.

John Brennan, the CIA director, was also nominated as an "accused person" for murder and "waging war against Pakistan".

The Guardian refuses to name the accused (perhaps for fear of another visit from the government with a power-sander), but other media does: he is Craig Peters Osth. Cryptome has more on him (including his past mentions in US diplomatic telegrams) here. As for the legal situation, as The Hindu notes,

The Peshawar High Court has already declared such drone strikes illegal and a violation of Pakistani and International laws in its judgment. Ms Mazari stated that Craig Osth is currently residing and operating from the United States Embassy situated in the Diplomatic Enclave in Islamabad, which is a clear violation of diplomatic norms and laws as a foreign mission cannot be used for any criminal activity within a sovereign state. CIA Station Chief is not a diplomatic post therefore he does not enjoy any diplomatic immunity and is within the bounds of domestic laws of Pakistan.

The Americans will no doubt try and hustle their agent out of the country. Otherwise they're looking at a very public and very embarrassing trial. Either way, now that he's been named, he should find it quite difficult to work in such positions in future.

Traitors to their own people

So, it turns out that despite routinely denouncing US drone strikes, it turns out that the previous Pakistani government actively colluded with the Americans in the bombing of their own people:

Despite repeatedly denouncing the CIA’s drone campaign, top officials in Pakistan’s government have for years secretly endorsed the programme and routinely received classified briefings on strikes and casualty counts, according to top-secret CIA documents and Pakistani diplomatic memos.

The files describe dozens of drone attacks in Pakistan’s tribal region and include maps as well as before-and-after aerial photos of targeted compounds from late 2007 to late 2011, in which the campaign intensified.

Markings on the documents indicate that many of them were prepared by the CIA’s Counterterrorism Centre specifically to be shared with Pakistan’s government. They tout the success of strikes that killed dozens of alleged al-Qa’ida operatives and assert repeatedly that no civilians were harmed.

We know that the latter is a lie; the US simply claimed that anyone killed was a terrorist, regardless of the actual facts. Meanwhile their bombing has been so indiscriminate that Amnesty International and Human Rights watch are calling it a war crime and demanding prosecutions.

The Pakistani political reaction is likely to be unpleasant. There are very ugly words for government officials who collude with foreign powers to murder their own people - "quislings" and "traitors" among them. President Sharif was elected six months ago on a platform of ending drone strikes. He should start by putting the collaborators on trial for conspiracy to murder.

(Meanwhile, there's a lesson here for those collaborating with the US: your secret will come out, either through leaks, journalism, or a sordid Washington power play. And when that happens, you'll be exposed to the wrath of your own people, whether electoral, judicial, or worse. If you want to avoid that wrath, don't collaborate. It's that simple).

New Fisk

The going price of getting away with murder... would $33m be enough?

Justice for drone strikes?

Since 2004, the US has waged a secret war in Pakistan, targeting the Taliban and Al Qaeda using drones. The attacks have killed at least 2,500 people, almost all of them civilians. Now, the people responsible - former CIA lawyer John Rizzo, who approved the strikes, as well as the civilian operators who pilot the drones and launch the missiles - may face arrest and extradition to Pakistan for the murders they have committed:

The attempt to seek an international arrest warrant for Rizzo is being led by the British human rights lawyer Clive Stafford Smith of the campaign group Reprieve, and lawyers in Pakistan. The lawyers are also building cases against other individuals, including drone operators interviewed or photographed during organised press facilities.

A first information report, the first step in seeking a prosecution of Rizzo in Pakistan, will be formally lodged early next week at a police station in the capital, Islamabad, on behalf of relatives of two people killed in drone strikes in 2009. The report will also allege Rizzo should be charged with conspiracy to murder a large number of Pakistani citizens.

Now retired, Rizzo, 63, is being pursued after admitting in an interview with the magazine Newsweek that since 2004 he had approved one drone attack order a month on targets in Pakistan, even though the US is not at war with the country.

The latter is significant. The absence of a formal state of war strips Rizzo and his drone operators of any protection they could claim under the laws of war. The killings are simply murders, and they are simply terrorists. Or, as the US would put it, "unlawful combatants" - though in the event that they ever face trial, it will be before a civilian court, with full appeal rights, rather than a US kangaroo tribunal.

The US, of course, will never extradite. But with international warrants out for their arrest, none of these terrorists will ever be able to travel internationally again, and the pressure will go on the US to stop harbouring them. Its not justice, but its a small step on the way.

The insanity of blasphemy laws

I've previously criticised Pakistan's outdated blasphemy law as a tool of religious persecution. But its worse than that. In addition to punishing those who fail to adhere to the prevailing religious orthodoxy, it can also be used to punish trivial behaviour with no religious component whatsoever - such as throwing away a pushy salesman's business card:

A doctor has been arrested on suspicion of violating Pakistan's contentious blasphemy law by discarding a business card of a man who shared the name of Islam's prophet, Muhammad, police say.

[...]

The case began when Muhammad Faizan, a pharmaceutical company representative, visited Dr Valiyani's clinic and handed out his business card. He said when the doctor threw the card away, he went to police and filed a complaint that noted his name was the same as the prophet's. Mr Shah said police were investigating whether the doctor should be charged with blasphemy.

"Buy my drugs or I'll have you arrested!" It would be funny, if someone wasn't facing a potential death penalty (whether legal, or extrajudicial) for it. But its also a perfect example of how blasphemy laws are abused by self-interested believers, and why countries should not have such laws.

No freedom of religion in Pakistan

Asia Bibi is a Pakistani Christian. Last June she got into a fight with some women in her village. In retaliation, they accused her of desecrating the Koran. As a result, she has now been sentenced to death for blasphemy.

She's not the only one. Pakistan's blasphemy laws are routinely used against non-Muslims as a tool of religious oppression. According to Human Rights Watch, that is exactly how they are intended to be used:

"The laws are discriminatory and intended as such and are used for precisely that purpose. So, the issue is not of their misuse but of the laws being on the statute books at all. Vague all-encompassing wording allows the laws to be used as an instrument of political and social coercion, legal discrimination and persecution."

Even where cases result in acquittal, defendants and judges have been murdered for their "offence" against religious values. While the government is reportedly considering reform, they have been sitting on the issue for years, too afraid of the fanatics to act to protect people from discrimination. As a result, there is no real freedom of religion in Pakistan.

But its not just Pakistan's problem. New Zealand still has a blasphemy law on the books, which outlaws any offence to Christians (and specifically Anglicans). And while the government doesn't use it anymore, religious fanatics occasionally do in an effort to punish speech they deem "disrespectful" of their imaginary friends.

Pakistan shows where such legislation leads, and what its purpose is. Such laws have no place in a modern, secular, liberal society. Our blasphemy law must be repealed.

The stupidity of drone attacks

On Friday, US drones killed another ten people in Pakistan. As usual, the victims were mostly civilians. Meanwhile, in the Independent, Johann Hari points out the obvious: these strikes are stupid, counterproductive, and endanger us all:

David Kilcullen is a counter-insurgency expert who worked for General Petraeus in Iraq and now advises the State Department. He has shown that two per cent of the people killed by the robot-planes in Pakistan are jihadis. The remaining 98 per cent are as innocent as the victims of 9/11. He says: "It's not moral." And it gets worse: "Every one of these dead non-combatants represents an alienated family, and more recruits for a militant movement that has grown exponentially as drone strikes have increased."

Professor of Middle Eastern history Juan Cole puts it more bluntly: "When you bomb people and kill their family, it pisses them off. They form lifelong grudges... This is not rocket science. If they were not sympathetic to the Taliban and al-Qa'ida before, after you bomb the shit out of them, they will be."

In other words, by indiscriminately killing people, they're feeding the insurgency they are trying to suppress, and driving people to the very behaviour they're supposedly there to prevent. These tactics are threatening our lives. But I guess they keep the CIA and military in business.

New Fisk

Spare me the academics who only want a 'safe, positive space'
Shadow lands: Pakistan's plight

New Fisk

Glossy new front in battle for hearts and minds
Pakistan's advocates of justice

New Fisk

On the streets of Pakistan, it's as if the sun hasn't set on the Raj

New Fisk

Face to face with Pakistan’s most wanted
Hafiz Muhammad Saeed: 'Do I look like a terrorist?'

New Fisk

As things get worse in Pakistan, the optimism continues to soar

New Fisk

The mysterious case of the Grey Lady of Bagram