Mercy beau-coup?

Am not familiar with the full body of evidence against the man (whoever he is), but if it is basically a confession made to the police, and/or some recently withdrawn allegations # 167, then it would be a serious miscarriage of justice to hang the man.

Beyond that, there are enough innocent people languishing in the jails of both countries.

Regarding the `latest developments`, there could have been other ways to prove Sarabjit`s innocence. I am not convinced about this Shaukat Ali. He gave these interviews to a news channel. He said he had fainted when the bomb blasts took place and did not see the perpetrator of the crime. So, why has he woken up now? And how are we imagining that by confessing to lie in court he is not putting hmself at risk with the law?

Unless of course this too is an arrangement. President Musharraf needs neutral witnesses to exonerate Sarabjit because he will be in trouble either way.

Star News got another witness. Not news channels are finding witnesses in a foreign country to speak against their own government. Wonderful...

Farzana Versey is a commi from Stalinist Russia .I think She has a major attitude problem
or perhaps she gets a kick in taking a stance which is diametrically opposite popular perception.
Whatever the case I would like to bring out two points ,which are(atleast thats what I think)
more relevant to the case of Sarabjit Singh.

1. The confession made by the accused could have been made in duress.

2. The identity of the accused could be easily acertained by a DNA test (from a sample taken from his family members)so that we can all know whether the accused is Sarabjit Singh or Manjeet Singh.

so Farzana dont jump to your guns ,take up some other cause ,after all its a matter of a human life ,a person who has been languising in a paki jail for 15 years
just leave Sarabjit and his family alone!!!


Regards
Nandan

re:#167 by dost-mittar
Ha, ha,ha.
Tahmed is hiding in his closet. Mullah Romair is busy speculating on the cause of Katrina in another forum.
As i said, the guy is innocent. The newer developments have proved some of us right!
Sridhar

Sarabjit is innocent: Prime witness

September 04, 2005 21:31 IST

tahmed32, Romair:

Are you still around? The prime witness against Sarabjit Singh - a Pakistani - has also retracted his statement.

``The prime witness who had testified against Sarabjit Singh, sentenced to death on charges of orchestrating bomb blasts in Pakistan, on Sunday said he had never seen the accused.``

Reports said the witness Shaukat Ali said his entire testimony was dictated by the public prosecutor.

Sarabjit Singh, whose family claims had ventured into Pakistan border and was captured, has been languishing in Pakistan`s prisons for 15 years.``

Farzana,

``On what basis is India defending Sarabjit Singh who has been convicted by the Supreme Court of Pakistan for terrorist activities?``

Is this the same ``Supreme`` Court of Pakistan that was purged, hand-picked, and one that even swore allegiance to Musharaff (a person Vs. a country).

The question isn`t whether India is asking about a citizen whom it knows little. It`s about the conviction (lynching probably more apt) of someone whom the Pakistani government knows even less.

Guilty as charged (or as confessed).

Qu`aviez-vous fumé?

Satire

Romair#162:

There is a difference between ``knowing`` (certainty) and ``thinking`` (speculation). If someone is an Indian spy, the Indian govt. should know about it.

Veeresh was taking a risk in violating his visa condition and if he were to be arrested, he should have been prepared for it (but he probably knew enough people in Pakistan to be confident that this wouldn`t happen to him). But if he were to be arrested, beaten the crap out of him until he confessed that he was an Indian spy who planted the bomb that tried to kill Musharraf, and faced hanging despite retracting his confession, then it would be like the scenario in which the Indian govt. should retaliate.

And as I said earlier, my statement was merely rhetorical. Indian judiciary is fiercely independent (though ubelievably inefficient and even corrupt at lower levels!) and would not pronounce a guilty verdict even for ordinary theft based on a retracted confession, let alone award capital punishment, which is practically abolished.

...and IJC has absolutely no jurisdiction is such matters.

#162 by Romair on September 2, 2005 11:57pm PT


the Pakistani govt. doesn`t think he is a spy, they can pick up Vereesh when he is watching the Test match in Pindi, when he only has a visa for Lahore........Regardless of what the Indian govt. thinks.......


Good...i`m all for that...that should put an end to visits to pakiland by these dumbass ``Pakis don`t support jihadi terrorism`` Indian liberals...no more medical facilities in India for paki kids either.(wtf is the deal with that? pakiland doesn`t have medical facilities or docs too busy treating instruments of political and diplomatic support?)


Because that will end up in cases in Kashmir going to the ICJ. Since India considers any militancy in Kashmir to be terrorism and not a freedom struggle, and it independently wants to adjudicate on that


hytothetical scenario:

ICJ to India: Struggle in Kashmir is a freedom struggle like the pakis say it is. You must vacate Kashmir.
India to ICJ: bite us.

ICJ to India: Baglihar dam is illegal. stop building it
India to ICJ: bite us.

ICJ to India: leave kashmir and stop the baglihar dam now or we`ll make you do it..
India to ICJ: mmkay...you and what army?




get the idea?

1. I hope the Indian government never adopts the covert or overt state policy of knowingly, deliberately, with specific intent, harming innocent Pakistanis. That covert or overt state policy would make the Indian government an international terrorist organization.

2. All hairsplitting, religious fudging, political double-speak notwithstanding, Jihad is nothing but an Arabic term for terrorism against non Muslims. ALL Jihadis, specially the ``sweet`` ones like Temporal, firmly back and support international terrorism.

3. Supporters of terrorism are NOT innocent. A terrorist is a soul-less automaton that kills and is destroyed. Supporters of terrorism are the ones who put these machines together, and launch them upon innocent others.

Without killing these supporters of terrorism, we MUST make their cost of supporting terrorism unbearably, painfully, high for them - no matter where they are located.

1. I hope the Indian government never adopts the covert or overt state policy of knowingly, deliberately, with specific intent, harming innocent Pakistanis. That covert or overt state policy would make the Indian government an international terrorist organization.

2. All hairsplitting, religious fudging, political double-speak notwithstanding, Jihad is nothing but an Arabic term for terrorism against non Muslims. ALL Jihadis, specially the ``sweet`` ones like Temporal, firmly back and support international terrorism.

3. Supporters of terrorism are NOT innocent. A terrorist is a soul-less automaton that kills and is destroyed. Supporters of terrorism are the ones who put these machines together, and launch them upon innocent others.

Without killing these supporters of terrorism, we MUST make their cost of supporting terrorism unbearably, painfully, high for them - no matter where they are located.

Dost-mittar #150: ``But if - and there is a big if - the Indian government knows that Sarabjit is not a spy then they should do something similar to a Pakistani.``

Could you explain exactly how the Indian govt. would prove whether he is a spy or not? Why would a govt. ever admit that someone was a spy? They would obviously say he wasn`t. Spying being an illegal act. In this case, he is charged with carrying out explosions, which killed 14 people. Which is even more illegal.

Also, do you think this should be a rule used by all govts. For example, if the Indian govt. catches a Pakistani under the charge of terrorism, should the Pakistani govt. then have the right to declare that if (big if or small if, take your pick) the Pakistani govt. doesn`t think he is a spy, they can pick up Vereesh when he is watching the Test match in Pindi, when he only has a visa for Lahore........Regardless of what the Indian govt. thinks.......

What should happen is that all such cases should go to the International Court of Justice. Both countries should make their case, in front of neutral int`l judges and those judges should decide. That way, it won`t be, ``he said, she said.``

The problem is that India never agrees to that. Because that will end up in cases in Kashmir going to the ICJ. Since India considers any militancy in Kashmir to be terrorism and not a freedom struggle, and it independently wants to adjudicate on that..........without any involvement from ICJ, UNO etc............Which is probably why India itself would not want to take this case to any int`l organization.........

The last thing both countries need is to start picking up each others citizens who have entered into the country. Pretty soon the few tourists that do visit the other country will stop visiting............

arjun-m, harish-hyd:

tahmed has been here since before 9/11. Truth be told, he was more Pro-India in his earlier days at chowk.

#158 by dost-mittar

[Frankly, I do not remember tahmed supporting Pakistani terrorists.]

Dost Sahib, Please note the following sentence:

``One must draw the line somewhere between right and wrong - and attacking innocent people is where one draws the line.``

tahmed32 is all for drawing lines when innocent Paki civilians are at the receiving end, but show me one condemnation of his of Pakistan`s state policy of encouraging Jihadis to slaughter innocent Indians.

#158 by dost-mittar on September 2, 2005 6:34am PT


Frankly, I do not remember tahmed supporting Pakistani terrorists.


Frankly, post 9/11, I don`t remember any paki admitting they supported jihadi terrorism...Didn`t you read the article I posted by the DG of the PISS..That was before 9/11...now paki love for the jihad has gone back into the closet...It`s a dramatic turnaround...almost as dramatic as Elton John giving up pink suits and showing up for a concert in blue jeans and a t-shirt....

harish-hyd#157:

``Wonder where the so-called ``line`` was when Paki terrorists were merrily killing innocent civilians, whether in J&K, or in the Parliament attack, or at Akshardham in Gujarat. Post 9/11 and 7/7, every Paki seems to have turned a dove and even better, civilized.``

Frankly, I do not remember tahmed supporting Pakistani terrorists. The debate I had with him was regarding a tit-for-tat behaviour. To me, if the Indian govt. thinks that one of its citizens is to be hanged after a sham trial for a crime he did not commit, it is okay for it to do something similar in India for the purpose of making an exchange with Pakistan. He perhaps does not realise that if the Indians picked up an illegal Pakistani, charged him with one of the many terrorist acts taking place in India, had the police extract a confession from him, then that citizen would be in exactly the same position as Sarabjit Singh is, presuming he is not a spy, in which case this tit-for-tat does not apply.

#151 by tahmed32

[One must draw the line somewhere between right and wrong - and attacking innocent people is where one draws the line. That is what separates a civilized society from a primitive one.]

Wonder where the so-called ``line`` was when Paki terrorists were merrily killing innocent civilians, whether in J&K, or in the Parliament attack, or at Akshardham in Gujarat. Post 9/11 and 7/7, every Paki seems to have turned a dove and even better, civilized.