Dodging the Law of Extradition

Good article Zahid, and a very interesting if meandering debate.

I do think that Tahnoon`s replies do not constitute any personal attacks whatsoever. And the idea that we should not take up someone`s views and analyze/criticize them is strange. I think interaction on Chowk is about discussing the article content AND the content of the replies - otherwise where is the thread in a threaded discussion.

What is wrong in my opinion is to criticize a person(directly/personally) rather than disagree with and debate her/his views.

A more thick skin and a less fragile ego and lots of sincere criticisms/debates.

Tahnoon,

I disagree. I was talking more of international law breaking down. and I stick by the principle that EVERYONE, whether self-confessed killer or not, is entitled to the rights recognized/granted by law. Carrying your argument to the logical extreme, why waste resources having a trial for a self-confessed killer, why not shoot him/her when he/she is caught?

Re: TA-Pasha

Too many complicated words and no content, C`mon man use simple English and make your point.

Insulting others to make your point is neither healthy nor civil. You have been very agitated recently......Whats up man? Domestic issues projecting on the Information Highway? Chill!!!!!

Welcome back BG. Distinguishing between the legal requirement for due process and the social motive of seeing justice done, I disagree with your renewal of the assertion that letting the FBI collect Kansi inevitably leads to a collapse of the local right of law.
For the sake of the argument, lets assume that Pakistani`s do have ready recourse to law in their own nation and by not legally processing his extradition order in absentia the government was abiding by these laws. Still, ensuring that we protest situations where there is some question as to guilt makes our protests credible and more likely to be heard when they are needed. By wasting time on a self confessed killer we simply squander resources to appear obstructionist.

Khadem Hussain,

It is a shame that you, and others who have repeated this complaint to the point of triviality feel that people should be so offended by having their ideas taken seriously.

I agree that these discussions are about ideas and not individuals. With a few limited exceptions this appears to be the case. We seem to be reverting to the witch hunt mindset where any criticism of an idea needs must be a personal attack since the idea is evidently unassailable.

I confess astonishment however that it is inevitably the same people who argue that discussions should be centred on ideas, that persist in complaining about the semantics of other peoples responses.

Tahnoon

Excuse me, I meant to say, good article, Mr. Ebrahim (sorry for mixing up your name with someone else`s)

By the way, good article, KH!

re the debate

Yes Kansi is most certainly a murderer, but EVERYONE has constitutional rights, even if they are deranged killers. We cannot go down the slippery slope of arguing that the `innocent` somehow having more of a right to due process than `the guilty`. In principle, all must be equal in the eyes of the law. What if there is a `Pakistani terrorist` whose guilt is not as clear cut? Will we decide before any due process that he/she is a killer and can be kidnapped by the FBI and sentenced by an American jury because we would rather not be wasting our time trying to figure out if someone is a terrorist or not and should be tried in America or not? Please remember that flagrant disregard of law without a hint of protest sets a dangerous precedent for the future.

Janet MD,

There is a difference between justifiably feeling good about oneself and doing so out of sheer bloody mindedness. I think the countervailing argument is based on this perspective rather than on the saintliness of the US or of any other nation.

This is not about a sense of inferiority. It is conversely about finding oneself a place in the world independent of the examples of others.
Cultures are never static. I am happier learning from others mistakes and directing the development of Pakistani Culture than puttering about re-inventing the wheel or preserving a social fossil. At the end of the day, as I have always said, anything that cannot survive the harsh cold light of empiricism is unnecessary.

Tahnoon.

p.s. where you speak of the son of a maiden, perhaps you mean spinster? I know of only one purported Son of a maiden and he sounds unlikely to have gotten involved with gunning people down even if he weren`t seperated from the event by two odd thousand years. :-)

Re: Chowdidaar and Muzaffar Qazilbash

Imam Din (chowkidaar) sahab,

I re-read my initial response and couldn`t find even a tinge of anything inflammatory in it.

The fact is that Kansi is a murderer, and I have no sympathy for murderers whether it is Kansi, the US government, the Israeli government, or the Pakistani one. Did the US violate extradition laws - YES, did the Pakistani government show lack of spunk and not follow its own laws - YES! But the Pakistani government is hardly in a position to argue for anything - let alone the rights of a murderer. The Pakistani government is a puppet regime, crushed by the burden of its foreign debt and beholden to the US upto its teeth. Expecting it to argue for its citizens is like expecting a homeless drug addict to win custody of her kids in a divorce battle. It ain`nt happening! This is a painful realization for most of us, but it is reality! Ours is a nation that has a relationship with the US in which we are not even able to get our $350 million refunded for lack of delivery for those damn F-16s! And no, please don`t accuse me of going off on a tangent again. All this is very relevant to the kind of relationship that Pakistan has with the US - big bully and puny serf bonded to the hilt - hardly an enviable position to argue for the rights of one of its own criminals.

AZ

Accountant,

You are quite correct in most of your assertions regarding US and in one instance Israeli culpability for criminal acts. I argued, however, in my closing paragraph that a quid pro quo is neither necessary nor desirable.
With the best will in the world, they do not however engage in wholesale slaughter of their own citizens on quite the same per capita scale as we seem to.
The consequences for their societies are of some concern as a humanist but in the context of Pakistan their actions are irrelevant.
If we lived in a vacuum and were required to judge the merit of punishing murderers, the answer would be obvious. If we wish to have a peaceful society we should make it difficult for people to kill each other and should demonstrate prompt punitive action when they do. Classical conditioning at its most classic. I would be much happier if the whole world were peaceful but in the meantime I will settle for making Pakistan more hospitable, albeit marginally.
Yes, Italy was wrong, Okinawa was practically criminal in itself, and Sabra and Shatilla demonstrated what the twelve tribes were able to learn about pogroms pretty effectively.
In my personal experience progress is pretty dependent on the goals one sets for oneself. If we set ourselves more onerous standards than people we so openly deride, maybe we can build a better society than them. This will not happen if we set up a ping pong game of savagery and atrocity.

I have always (except for bohemian student days) advocated capital punishment for capital offences. So I reiterate, I hope they incinerate the son of a bachelor. :-)

Incidentally, as per post elsewhere, please feel free to use my first name. Pasha Sahib was my dear departed grandad.

Chowkidar et al.,

Sovereignity is perhaps less sacrosanct than you imply. That any loss of sovereignity will result in an inevitable decay in the national fabric is a highly questionable assertion. You might as well say that being insulted irreparably affects your psyche. Any insult, ...completely destroys you as an individual.
Rather than an absolute intransigience with the global community, lets think about drawing rational lines and defending them vigorously. Lets start by drawing them for ourselves before we argue that others should pretend selective blindness in their dealings with us.

Tahnoon.

Re: Accountant

Your questions are all very valid and Zahid Ebrahim correctly points out that due process of Law was not followed in Mr. Kansi`s extradition - . But I on the other hand have a tough time feeling any sympathy for a murderer (Did Mr.Kansi follow due process of Law?), when there are thousands of oppressed Pakistani people much more deserving of sympathy and due legal process - who have done NOTHING wrong, get none.

Anita

This was a murderer and a terrorist. Due process was not observed and that is wrong. It occurs, however, that Aimal Kansi had been at large for some time. There was surely sufficient time for the Pakistan government, in whichever incarnation, to sign off on an extradition order and ask for assistance in his capture, or...heres a stretch...apprehend him themselves.

If we hadn`t demonstrated such craven ineptitude (as several other posts have pointed out)as a nation in putting someone psychotic enough to start blasting away on a public road behind bars, I can see where a stronger nation would feel justified in saying ``stuff this`` and going in themselves.

The comments of a bigoted freak, notwithstanding his investiture in the US senate are neither here nor there.

It strikes me that both rascism and random violence are prevalent enough in Pakistan that perhaps we have become inured to them. I personally hope they fry the bast *rd slowly, and his ilk in Pakistan. We are better served putting our house in order than arguing the niceties of international relations vis a vis a homicidal maniac.

The quote by Justice Stevens is quite telling:

``the processes and restrictions on the obligation to extradite established by Treaty would make no sense if either nation were free to resort to forcible kidnapping to gain the presence of an individual for prosecution in a manner not contemplated by the treaty.``

In my mind, the actions of the Pakistani & US governments raise the following broader question about the rule of law:

If the government, which is presumably elected by the people, has the right to formulate laws, then does it also have the right to ignore them at will?