| Submit your comments on this article |
| India-Pakistan |
| 'Some people released by SC attacking forces' |
| 2007-11-15 |
| Top military authorities have said that some of the people released under the Supreme Court (SC)’s orders are attacking security forces and targeting national installations. “We have irrefutable evidence that the people who were set free under the SC’s directives are attacking security forces, targeting national installations and worsening the situation,” senior military officials said while briefing senior media representatives at GHQ Rawalpindi on Wednesday. They said the army is countering extremism, adding that it has been reactivated in the Tribal Areas and Swat from October 23. They said 100,000 troops are participating in the war against militancy in Balochistan, the Tribal Areas and other parts of the NWFP. They said the army’s primary target was Baitullah Mehsood and vowed that the army would “arrest or kill him”. They said the army was cooperating and coordinating with international forces engaged in Afghanistan. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #1 Pak courts are Islamized, so I don't doubt they are releasing known jihadis for political purposes. Do you trust unelected judges? Here's why I don't. In 1804 SCOTUS ordered reinstatement of a public official, Marbury, in spite of both a lack of legislative power to do so, and the fact that President Madison backed the sacking (Madison was named as a respondent party in the petition). SCOTUS decided the case on nominal principle: "remedy" must follow a finding of "right." Sounds good, except for one thing: Marbury was a fellow judge; SCOTUS looked after their own. Fast forward to 1857, when Dred Scot petitioned for freedom as an escaped slave on free territory. With SCOTUS in the hands of Chief Justice Taney's slaver-interest group, they found that remedy was moot. Why? Because, on the issue of rights they upheld the colonial view that the Negro was: "an inferior sort of being." The Dred Scot case led the South to invoke all-state settled law, as a basis of their right to re-constitute (secede) on maintenance of the slave-trade. While hundreds of thousands of bodies piled up in the Civil War, the "Emancipation Proclamation" undid an atrocity committed by an unelected and unprincipled judiciary. More cause to question reliance on judges: in the eighties a mini scandal arose when it came out that former SCOTUS clerks were citing sole authorship of high court cases, some of which were of extreme importance. SCOTUS geezers were in no position to deny said claims. Although the favor (who won) of SCOTUS determinations are decided by said geezers, the text of what is cited is usually written by Law Clerks in their early twenties. SCOTUS is not a fount of wisdom. I would reduce their power to an advisory role. |
| Posted by: McZoid 2007-11-15 03:19 |