FCR

Pakistan Supreme Court Condemns Indefinite Detention Without Charges

While the US enters its eleventh year of maintaining the Guantanamo Prison that Barack Obama pledged to close by the end of 2009, Pakistan now finds itself in the glare of international condemnation for its own practice of indefinite detention without charges. Just last month, Amnesty International released a report (pdf) in which they pointed out widespread torture and abuse in Pakistan’s tribal areas while prisoners are held by the military and intelligence agency without charges:

Amnesty International research shows that, rather than seeking to apply and strengthen the human rights safeguards of Pakistan’s ordinary criminal justice system in the Tribal Areas, the Pakistani authorities are applying old and new security laws that authorise prolonged, arbitrary, preventive detention by the Armed Forces, and breach international human rights law. The Actions (in Aid of Civil Power) Regulations 2011 (AACPR) in particular, along with the century-old Frontier Crimes Regulation 1901 (FCR),5 provide a framework for widespread human rights violations to occur with impunity.

Both the AACPR and FCR come into play in a case argued today in Pakistan’s Supreme Court. From Reuters, we learn that although this case addresses just 11 men (now 7 due to four deaths, more on that later), the government now admits that over 700 are being held without charges:

Pakistan is holding 700 suspected Islamist militants without charge under a law that has come under fire from human rights groups, its attorney general said on Thursday.

The admission marked the first time that the strategic U.S. ally detailed how many militants it is holding in the tribal areas of the northwest under the Actions in Aid of Civil Power Regulations law.

“There is a military operation in Waziristan. Under the law we cannot try these 700 people, nor can we release them, unless the operation is over,” Attorney General Irfan Qadir told the Supreme Court, referring to a tribal area near the Afghan border.

The Reuters report, however, seems to miss the mark on several important issues in this story. First, Reuters says the case is about “seven suspected militants held without charge since May 2010”. Both Dawn and the Express Tribune point out in their stories today that the case originated with 11 men. Here is how Dawn describes that part of the background:

The 11 prisoners in the said case went missing from the gate of Rawalpindi’s Adiyala Jail on May 29, 2010 after they had been acquitted of terrorism charges pertaining to their alleged involvement in the October 2009 attacks on the Army General Headquarters and the Inter-Services Intelligence’s (ISI) Hamza Camp in the garrison town.

Later, four of the 11 died in mysterious circumstances. The Supreme Court forced the ISI and military intelligence to produce the remaining seven men in court on February 13 — an unprecedented move. The men, all in deteriorating health, were sent to the Lady Reading Hospital in Peshawar on court orders. After five of them recovered, they were shifted to an internment centre in Parachinar.

The other point that Reuters seems to miss comes when Reuters says of the men that the “Supreme Court is calling for their release” while it appears on closer reading of the Pakistani press that the “release” is from military detention into the hands of civilian authorities who would then try the men. Here is the Express Tribune: Continue reading

Emptywheel Twitterverse
bmaz @ThePlumLineGS @germanrlopez The entire thing seems designed to absolve Clinton with fancy dan charts, graphs+statistics. its bullshit.
19mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @caulkthewagon GetOffOurLawn
20mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @ThePlumLineGS @germanrlopez Yes, then blithely hands Clinton mostly a pass. And does so without so much as even mentioning the AEDPA.
21mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel My 14+ yo Lab mix at crowded vet wondering where all the Corgies came from.
23mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @ThePlumLineGS @germanrlopez ..."superpredators" and the other fear mongering straight out of the Clintonian efforts in 94 and 96. Was awful
25mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @ThePlumLineGS @germanrlopez I was actually involved in trying to fight many changes for worse here. Can't tell how much we heard....
26mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @ThePlumLineGS @germanrlopez In terms of numbers, yes. But where do you think the states got the cover to go hog wild??
27mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @ThePlumLineGS @germanrlopez So, for Lopez to blithely say that the Clinton years really didn't have much effect is straight up stupid.
28mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @ThePlumLineGS @germanrlopez And the 1994 Crime bill and 1995 AEDPA really were awful+created living hell that states copied and made worse.
28mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @ThePlumLineGS @germanrlopez While the trends did indeed really start going wild during Reagan years, they cemented during Clinton terms
30mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @cristianafarias Jury nullification is inherently within the purview of jury. But formalizing it+instucting a jury of it is asinine thought
32mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @ThePlumLineGS @germanrlopez It does not ring true for squat to me, who actually practiced criminal law since the Reagan years.
35mreplyretweetfavorite
February 2016
S M T W T F S
« Jan    
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
2829