Pakistan to Execute Brit after Found not Guilty by the High Court

[SteveGrenard]

Prince Charees is appealing to Perv Mushareff on behalf of this British subject who was acquitted by the High Court and then found guilty by the kanagaroo court aka Shari'a (e.g. court of muslim injustice)

The execution was planned by Pakistan to take place during Charle and Camilla's visit to the country.


U.K.-born Hussain, a former British Army reservist from Leeds in northern England, faces execution for the murder of a taxi driver 18 years ago, while Hussain was visiting relatives. He claims the taxi driver tried to sexually assault him and produced a gun which went off in a struggle, killing the driver.

The High Court in Lahore acquitted him. The case was then referred to a religious court, which reversed the decision and sentenced Hussain to death.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=awAzl8.EDMwE&refer=uk

[Mojo]

Kind of an old story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/4757837.stm

[RyanRoberts]

Prince Charles and George Galloway protesting on his behalf, popular guy.

[Darth Rotor]

Prince Charles is appealing to Perv Mushareff on behalf of this British subject who was acquitted by the High Court and then found guilty by the kanagaroo court aka Shari'a (e.g. court of muslim injustice)

The execution was planned by Pakistan to take place during Charles and Camilla's visit to the country.
This looks like double jeopardy. Or does it? OJ Simpson had a criminal and a civil trial, with differing outcomes. Is the Sharia trial analogous to "a civil trial?" Any attorney's who "get" international law around? :confused:
Amnesty International has called for a retrial, and British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett have urged Musharraf to reconsider Hussain's sentence. He has already served 18 years in a cramped, dark cell, mostly at the notorious Adiala Jail in Rawalpindi near the capital.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/20/AR2006052000632.html

I note from the article that an effort to provide a wereguild/blood money was rejected by the cab driver's family.

Where is the UN Human Rights Council on this one? Have they commented, or is this more "Third World solidarity?" *slaps forehead* As if their input matters. :p

DR

[Darat]

Prince Charles and George Galloway protesting on his behalf, popular guy.


Yes but Charles only doesn't want it to happen during his visit....



;)

[drkitten]

This looks like double jeopardy.

Prohibition on double jeopardy isn't a universal legal principle. Heck, it doesn't even apply under UK law.

[RyanRoberts]

You would kind of hope that visit might be on hold while Pakistan is actively involved in attacks on British troops. The security implications alone of having the heir to the throne visiting the country that harbours Bin Laden and Mullah Omar have to be pretty serious.

I guess that is dreadfully naive of me though.

[Darth Rotor]

Prohibition on double jeopardy isn't a universal legal principle. Heck, it doesn't even apply under UK law.
Then I guess he hangs.

Sucks to be him.

DR

[drkitten]

Then I guess he hangs.


Unless someone is willing to rattle -- and use -- a Really Big Sabre, then, probably.


Sucks to be him.

Yup.

[wastepanel]

Unless someone is willing to rattle -- and use -- a Really Big Sabre, then, probably.


It's alot harder to rattle that sabre when Pakistan has a sabre of its own...

[Darat]

One point that may not have occurred to non-UK readers is why on earth is Prince Charles getting involved - he has no right to and should keep his bloody nose out.

[pipelineaudio]

One point that may not have occurred to non-UK readers is why on earth is Prince Charles getting involved - he has no right to and should keep his bloody nose out.

Yes, we should just allow barbarians to kill people with magical thinking as justification

Sorry, this is the first time in my life I have heard of ANYTHING useful being done by this guy...dont stop him now

[Darat]

Yes, we should just allow barbarians to kill people with magical thinking as justification

Sorry, this is the first time in my life I have heard of ANYTHING useful being done by this guy...dont stop him now


Prince Charles is not a private citizen expressing his views, he is the heir to the throne and has a constitutional role.

[pipelineaudio]

Prince Charles is not a private citizen expressing his views, he is the heir to the throne and has a constitutional role.

Ahhh I didnt know the constitutonal role thing. I thought they were just some relics, like a national treasure/oddity thing. Wouldnt part of his role be to protect UK citizens though?

But am I to understand that power is given in the UK under privelege of birth lines?

[Darat]

Ahhh I didnt know the constitutonal role thing. I thought they were just some relics, like a national treasure/oddity thing. Wouldnt part of his role be to protect UK citizens though?

But am I to understand that power is given in the UK under privelege of birth lines?

Not quite and I should be careful in using the word "constitutional" in this way. There are precedents about what he should and should not do which when you have a non-codified constitution as the UK has is pretty much the same.

However he will be (if he doesn't die before his mother) be our next head of state. Our head of state is not a political position and is not meant to speak out about political matters or indeed express official opinions.

ETA: In his "own" words: http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/about/rol_index.html

[drkitten]

But am I to understand that power is given in the UK under privelege of birth lines?

See "Lords, House of."

That would be a "yes," by the way.

[Darth Rotor]

One point that may not have occurred to non-UK readers is why on earth is Prince Charles getting involved - he has no right to and should keep his bloody nose out.

I suggest he is acting on the dictates of his conscience for the benefit of one of HRM's subjects.

DR

[SteveGrenard]

This looks like double jeopardy. Or does it? OJ Simpson had a criminal and a civil trial, with differing outcomes. Is the Sharia trial analogous to "a civil trial?" Any attorney's who "get" international law around? :confused:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/20/AR2006052000632.html


It is nothing like a civil or criminal trial. It is a bibical trial.There is no evidence required other than oral argument citing biblical, well koranic parable and verse. When the High Court which was a secular criminal proceeding found him NOT guilty having had a perfectly reasonable and supported defense of self defense (the deceased was shot with his own gun in an attack and ensuing struggle) the dead man's family then appealed to the Shari'a court to take up the case where its only an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth justice.Yeah the guy killed the attacker. He's dead, the other guy did it, therefore he is guilty. There are no shades of gray. No possible defense based on justification.

This is a prime example of why Shari'a is a travesty, biased, unfair, and makes a shambles out of basically all human rights including in this case the right to defend oneself.

The only option this defendent had was to let the other guy kill him so he could go to heaven hoping his family would take him to Shari'a and extract a death sentence out of them for his killing.


I note from the article that an effort to provide a wereguild/blood money was rejected by the cab driver's family.

More of the myth. You can buy your way out of a conviction under Shari'a by paying compensation. This reminds me of the Code of Hammurabi, rich man's justice. I guess we have it everywhere. It is the right of the family of the dead person to refuse this. My Palestinian driver in Kuwait, who was the carefulest driver I have ever known told me that if someone was killed by him while he was driving, the family could ask the Shari'a to have him struck down and killed as well. I guess it makes for pretty careful drivers but to throw out self-defense is reprehensible.


Where is the UN Human Rights Council on this one? Have they commented, or is this more "Third World solidarity?" *slaps forehead* As if their input matters. :p


The Shari'a, let alone the secular authorities in Pakistan are not known to give any ear to human right's violation complaints so they just don't bother much.

[Darat]

I suggest he is acting on the dictates of his conscience for the benefit of one of HRM's subjects.

DR

Disagree I'd say the (very circumstantial) evidence points that he didn't give a damn about this until his people realised that it was going to happen when he was there on an visit. To me that suggests (and that is of course just speculation) that he was much more interested in the negative and PR such an event would bring to his visit.

[Darth Rotor]

Disagree I'd say the (very circumstantial) evidence points that he didn't give a damn about this until his people realised that it was going to happen when he was there on an visit. To me that suggests (and that is of course just speculation) that he was much more interested in the negative and PR such an event would bring to his visit.
That is also likely. Perhaps a bit of both?

DR

[Zep]

So Steve. You've explained the issue and I do think we understand so far.

What's you SOLUTION?

Write letters?

Protest in the streets?

Demand the UN "stop them"?

Invade Pakistan, find all the proponents of Shari'a law, and shoot them against the nearest wall?

Your input appreciated...

[SteveGrenard]

The following is worth a read. No doubt in deference to Prince Charles the execution has been postponed for two months. In addition the Times of London online is also ressurecting the issue of compensation payment. Is it all about money after all? The following is a new interesting read in this matter:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2412996,00.html

Protesting loudly seems to work for the offendeds, it should work for those unfairly sanctioned under Shari'a as well. Whoever yells loudest?

Unlike Darat I congratulate Charles for his activism in this matter.