From: <peacethrujustice@aol.com>
Date: Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 3:02 AM
Subject: [bangla-vision] Dr. Aafia Siddiqui's 39th birthday observed in brutal, unconstitutional custody
AAFIA SIDDIQUI # 90279-054
FMC CARSWELL
FEDERAL MEDICAL CENTER
P.O. BOX 27137
FORT WORTH, TX 76127
U.S.A
As with any communication, Please DO NOT DISCUSS HER LEGAL CASE, POLITICAL ISSUES OR SIMILAR ISSUES. Thank you for your support and any cards sent will be greatly appreciated.
THE APRIL 9th MOBILIZATION
With the recent release of the International Justice Network's (IJN) eye-opening report on Dr. Aafia Siddiqui, it is now A DOCUMENTED FACT that Aafia's rendition in Pakistan, and subsequent five year secret imprisonment overseas did indeed occur.
It is also a fact, in the opinion of many experts, that Aafia's forced removal to the United States; her subsequent pre-trial confinement under torturous conditions in the US; and the sham of a trial, and subsequent 86 year sentence (which has her where she is today) is a violation of the U.S. Constitution and well established international law.
While the U.S. government exerts pressure on the Pakistani government for the release of a U.S. citizen ("Raymond Davis") who willfully and deliberately took two lives (while a "guest" in Pakistan) - and to ignore any facts that may stand in the way of that release - that same U.S. government has done everything in its power to bury the FACTS surrounding this wrongfully imprisoned Pakistani Muslim woman; and to bury the body, and further damage the mind and spirit of Aafia Siddiqui as well!
THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE!
Insha'Allah, on Saturday, April 9, 2011 (at a time yet to be determined), a broad, Muslim-led coalition of concerned people will hold a demonstration at the federal facility in Fort Worth, Texas, where Aafia Siddiqui is currently being held...totally, and brutally, cut off from the outside world! If you are within driving distance of Ft. Worth, please mark your calendar and plan now to join us!
Our message to the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. Department of Justice - and to all other relevant offices within the U.S. government - will be:
Accord Dr. Aafia Siddiqui the Human Rights that she is entitled to (even as a prisoner), under U.S. and International Law!
Insha'Allah, we expect to have published copies of the IJN report (in the form of a roughly 30 page booklet) available for distribution at that time.
El-Hajj Mauri' Saalakhan
For additional information call: (301) 220-0133, or via e-mail: peacethrujustice@aol.com
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men [and women] do nothing."
- Edmund Burke
Wednesday, March 02, 2011
Said President Obama referring to the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations: "We expect Pakistan, that's a signatory and recognizes Mr Davis as a diplomat [it has not], to abide by the same convention." State Department Spokesman PJ Crowley added, with regard to Davis' status: "He has diplomatic immunity, and Pakistan needs to meet its international obligations."
Pakistan's government, worried about what the situation's implications for future American aid might be, has been singing along. "Under our laws, we have to accept the immunity for Raymond Davis," then-PPP spokesperson Fauzia Wahab told CBS News. "Pakistan has international obligations and we have to fulfill those obligations."
When the statement produced a backlash the government attempted to distance itself from it, claiming that it had been Wahab's opinion and not the position of the PPP. However, Interior Minister Rehman Malik has taken the same line, saying that Pakistan was signatory to "certain international laws protocols which cannot be violated."
Malik and other government officials are always quick to add that the courts will decide, but there's not much secret that the PPP government would like to find an excuse, -any excuse, to release Davis. Unfortunately for the State Department and its allies in Pakistan's government there are serious questions as to how "obligated" Pakistan is in this matter. A nation's signature on a treaty does not automatically make its terms binding domestic law. No one should know that better than the US government.
According to the US Supreme Court "not all international law obligations automatically constitute binding federal law enforceable in United States courts." The Court added that while treaties "may comprise international commitments, they are not domestic law unless Congress has either enacted implementing statutes or the treaty itself conveys an intention that it be 'self-executing' and is ratified on these terms." (Medellin v. Texas 552 US 491 [2008]). Whether or not a treaty is self-executing is a matter for the Supreme Court to decide.
Pakistani law takes the same view of international obligations that American law does. Pakistan's Supreme Court has held that treaty rights cannot be enforced if they have not been incorporated by legislation into the laws of the country. "According to Article 175(2) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, no court has any jurisdiction unless conferred by or under any law or the constitution, therefore, treaty unless was incorporated into the law so that it become part of Municipal Laws of the Country, no court shall have jurisdiction to enforce any right arising therefrom." (Societe Generale De Surveillances SA v. Pakistan, 2002 SCMR 1694 [2002]).
sIn 1972, when Pakistan's parliament finally got the opportunity to pass judgment on the 1961 Vienna Convention (the Convention was signed by Ayub Khan, a military dictator), it chose, after careful deliberation, not to incorporate more than half of its articles into Pakistani law.
Under the terms of the Convention, the receiving country has virtually no say in who is sent to it with diplomatic immunity. The opportunity for abuse was self-evident, so Parliament dispensed with the one-sided articles (the ones the US is largely relying upon) in order to reserve for Pakistan's Foreign Office the final word on who gets diplomatic immunity and who does not.
Pakistan's courts, meanwhile, are under an obligation under Article 4 of the Constitution to ensure that any person within Pakistan enjoys the protection of the law (including the two people Raymond Davis killed as well as their families). They are also under an obligation under Article 5 of the Constitution to ensure that any person within Pakistan (including Raymond Davis) obeys the law. The courts would therefore be unlikely to sign off on any cynical arrangement between the two governments.
Three Pakistani citizens have been killed by people sent to Pakistan by the United States government. Those people weren't there for diplomacy. The US legal position is shaky. It would therefore be nice to see more contrition out of the US government and less misplaced self-righteousness.
| Having trouble viewing this email? Click here |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
--
Palash Biswas
Pl Read:
http://nandigramunited-banga.blogspot.com/
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment