Re: Is it moral for the Govt to sell accused people?
Morality of offering reward for murderers, kidnappers, and rapists. And than giving this reward to the people who capture these criminals and terrorists. A dilemma for some people.
Re: Is it moral for the Govt to sell accused people?
Tegs bro! It is easy to diss Pakistan in the name of saving a petty terrorist. OK “accused” terrorist!
So an “accused” terrorist is wanted by the United States of America, and this accused terrorist happens to be hiding in country “X”.
Now go ahead and fill X with UK, Australia, Germany, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Dubai, India, Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Japan, etc. etc.
Then the country “X” hands over the accused terrorist to USA. Will you be so quick to declare that country “X” as “Land of the corrupt, home of the hopefuls that never get a chance!”?
Or your “love and affection” is only reserved for Pakistan?
Re: Is it moral for the Govt to sell accused people?
Woh na samjhayain hain na samjhayain gay yea baat
Samjhnay kay liya bhie kuch samajh chahiya 
Brother, if one applies their principle to every country than even UK is land of corrupt … unless all their assumptions only apply to Pakistan Look at this news:
Sunday Times:
December 2, 2007
US says it has right to kidnap British citizens
David Leppard
AMERICA has told Britain that it can “kidnap” British citizens if they are wanted for crimes in the United States.
A senior lawyer for the American government has told the Court of Appeal in London that kidnapping foreign citizens is permissible under American law because the US Supreme Court has sanctioned it.
The admission will alarm the British business community after the case of the so-called NatWest Three, bankers who were extradited to America on fraud charges. More than a dozen other British executives, including senior managers at British Airways and BAE Systems, are under investigation by the US authorities and could face criminal charges in America.
Until now it was commonly assumed that US law permitted kidnapping only in the “extraordinary rendition” of terrorist suspects.
The American government has for the first time made it clear in a British court that the law applies to anyone, British or otherwise, suspected of a crime by Washington.
Legal experts confirmed this weekend that America viewed extradition as just one way of getting foreign suspects back to face trial. Rendition, or kidnapping, dates back to 19th-century bounty hunting and Washington believes it is still legitimate.
The US government’s view emerged during a hearing involving Stanley Tollman, a former director of Chelsea football club and a friend of Baroness Thatcher, and his wife Beatrice.
The Tollmans, who control the Red Carnation hotel group and are resident in London, are wanted in America for bank fraud and tax evasion. They have been fighting extradition through the British courts.
During a hearing last month Lord Justice Moses, one of the Court of Appeal judges, asked Alun Jones QC, representing the US government, about its treatment of Gavin, Tollman’s nephew. Gavin Tollman was the subject of an attempted abduction during a visit to Canada in 2005.
Jones replied that it was acceptable under American law to kidnap people if they were wanted for offences in America. “The United States does have a view about procuring people to its own shores which is not shared,” he said.
He said that if a person was kidnapped by the US authorities in another country and was brought back to face charges in America, no US court could rule that the abduction was illegal and free him: “If you kidnap a person outside the United States and you bring him there, the court has no jurisdiction to refuse — it goes back to bounty hunting days in the 1860s.”
Mr Justice Ouseley, a second judge, challenged Jones to be “honest about [his] position”.
Jones replied: “That is United States law.”
He cited the case of Humberto Alvarez Machain, a suspect who was abducted by the US government at his medical office in Guadalajara, Mexico, in 1990. He was flown by Drug Enforcement Administration agents to Texas for criminal prosecution.
Although there was an extradition treaty in place between America and Mexico at the time — as there currently is between the United States and Britain — the Supreme Court ruled in 1992 that the Mexican had no legal remedy because of his abduction.
In 2005, Gavin Tollman, the head of Trafalgar Tours, a holiday company, had arrived in Toronto by plane when he was arrested by Canadian immigration authorities.
An American prosecutor, who had tried and failed to extradite him from Britain, persuaded Canadian officials to detain him. He wanted the Canadians to drive Tollman to the border to be handed over. Tollman was escorted in handcuffs from the aircraft in Toronto, taken to prison and held for 10 days.
A Canadian judge ordered his release, ruling that the US Justice Department had set a “sinister trap” and wrongly bypassed extradition rules. Tollman returned to Britain.
Legal sources said that under traditional American justice, rendition meant capturing wanted people abroad and bringing them to the United States. The term “extraordinary rendition” was coined in the 1990s for the kidnapping of terror suspects from one foreign country to another for interrogation.
There was concern this weekend from Patrick Mercer, the Tory MP, who said: “The very idea of kidnapping is repugnant to us and we must handle these cases with extreme caution and a thorough understanding of the implications in American law.”
Shami Chakrabarti, director of the human rights group Liberty, said: “This law may date back to bounty hunting days, but they should sort it out if they claim to be a civilised nation.”
The US Justice Department declined to comment.
Re: Is it moral for the Govt to sell accused people?
Well, it seems that Europe is also morally corrupt and banana country. Just look at this News (from Daily Telegraph - UK):
Though the news talk about British air travellers, but from the news it is apparent that actually that applies to all European travellers, as Brussels agreed with what USA wanted and it is one sided arrangement (Americans do not have to comply with this rule).
US ‘licence to snoop’ on British air travellers.
By David Millward, Transport Correspondent
Last Updated: 1:57AM GMT 02/01/2007
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1538286/US-‘licence-to-snoop’-on-British-air-travellers.html
Britons flying to America could have their credit card and email accounts inspected by the United States authorities following a deal struck by Brussels and Washington.
By using a credit card to book a flight, passengers face having other transactions on the card inspected by the American authorities. Providing an email address to an airline could also lead to scrutiny of other messages sent or received on that account.
The extent of the demands were disclosed in “undertakings” given by the US Department of Homeland Security to the European Union and published by the Department for Transport after a Freedom of Information request.
About four million Britons travel to America each year and the released document shows that the US has demanded access to far more data than previously realised.
Not only will such material be available when combating terrorism but the Americans have asserted the right to the same information when dealing with other serious crimes.
Shami Chakrabarti, the director of the human rights group Liberty, expressed horror at the extent of the information made available. “It is a complete handover of the rights of people travelling to the United States,” she said.
As the Americans tightened security after the September 11 attacks, they demanded that airlines provide comprehensive information about passengers](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/07/wair07.xml) before allowing them to land.
But this triggered a dispute that came to a head last year in a Catch 22 situation. On one hand they were told they must provide the information, on the other they were threatened with heavy fines by EU governments for breaching European data protection legislation.
In October, Brussels agreed to sweep away the “bureaucratic hurdles” preventing airlines handing over this material after European carriers were threatened with exclusion from the US. The newly-released document sets out the rules underpinning that deal.
As a result the Americans are entitled to 34 separate pieces of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data — all of which must be provided by airlines from their computers.
Much of it is routine but some elements will prove more contentious, such as a passenger’s email address, whether they have a previous history of not turning up for flights and any religious dietary requirements.
While insisting that “additional information” would only be sought from lawful channels, the US made clear that it would use PNR data as a trigger for further inquiries.
Anyone seeking such material would normally have to apply for a court order or subpoena, although this would depend on what information was wanted. Doubts were raised last night about the effectiveness of the safeguards.
“There is no guarantee that a bank or internet provider would tell an individual that material about them was being subpoenaed,” an American lawyer said.
“Then there are problems, such as where the case would take place and whether an individual has time to hire a lawyer, even if they wanted to challenge it.”
Initially, such material could be inspected for seven days but a reduced number of US officials could view it for three and a half years. Should any record be inspected during this period, the file could remain open for eight years.
Material compiled by the border authorities can be shared with domestic agencies. It can also be on a “case by case” basis with foreign governments.
Washington promised to “encourage” US airlines to make similar information available to EU governments — rather than compel them to do so.
“It is pretty horrendous, particularly when you couple it with our one-sided extradition arrangements with the US,” said Miss Chakrabarti.
“It is making the act of buying a ticket a gateway to a host of personal email and financial information. While there are safeguards, it appears you would have to go to a US court to assert your rights.”
Chris Grayling, the shadow transport secretary, said: “Our government and the EU have handed over very substantial powers to gain access to private information belonging to British citizens.”
A Department for Transport spokesman said: “Every airline is obliged to conform with these rules if they wish to continue flying As part of the terms of carriage, it is made clear to passengers what these requirements are.
The US government has given undertakings on how this data will be used and who will see it.”
Re: Is it moral for the Govt to sell accused people?
Pont being, its shameless. How many terrorists hiding in the west (Altaf Hussain etc), wanted in Pakistan were handed over? If they were not, the Musharraf Govt had no right to sell people for some quick cash either, even though it would still be a shameless thing to do. It just shows that the leadership of the country has no spine and are merely what we refer to as 'pithooz', and I hope the new democractically elected Government does not repeat such mistakes, which were a hall mark of the military dictatorship.
Pont being, its shameless. How many terrorists hiding in the west (Altaf Hussain etc), wanted in Pakistan were handed over? If they were not, the Musharraf Govt had no right to sell people for some quick cash either, even though it would still be a shameless thing to do. It just shows that the leadership of the country has no spine and are merely what we refer to as 'pithooz', and I hope the new democractically elected Government does not repeat such mistakes, which were a hall mark of the military dictatorship.
All your taliban-inspired bravado is great, but some of us don't want our country to turn into Iraq or Afghanistan due to ego issues. These foreign terrorists and criminals are killers of Pakistanis. Enough reason to ship them off to whoever wants them.
Re: Is it moral for the Govt to sell accused people?
^ And your MQM inspired innuendo isnt needed, neither do you need to worry about whats happning outside of Karachi. If you accuse someone of being a murderer, you try him in a court in your own country. With your own logic, altaf hussain, is a foriegn terrorist and criminal living in England and he should be shipped to whoever wants him.
^ And your MQM inspired innuendo isnt needed, neither do you need to worry about whats happning outside of Karachi. If you accuse someone of being a murderer, you try him in a court in your own country. With your own logic, altaf hussain, is a foriegn terrorist and criminal living in England and he should be shipped to whoever wants him.
I'll worry about all of Pakistan, you can obsesses about Karachi and MQM all you want. The court system does not and should not apply to terrorist combatants. No country will allow it's legal system to be exploited by terrorists. That is the way things are headed all over the world. Burying ones head in the sand will not change the events that the jihadis have unleashed upon the world. People have no sympathy for these murderers and many many countries, patience is running out towards those Muslims who sympathize with the terrorists.
I'll worry about all of Pakistan, you can obsesses about Karachi and MQM all you want. The court system does not and should not apply to terrorist combatants. No country will allow it's legal system to be exploited by terrorists. That is the way things are headed all over the world. Burying ones head in the sand will not change the events that the jihadis have unleashed upon the world. People have no sympathy for these murderers and many many countries, patience is running out towards those Muslims who sympathize with the terrorists.
Yeah, maybe thats why people voted Musharraf out of power in the 2008 elections. People arent as islamophoebic as you are, and its very evident from the recent weeks that if Musharraf is out, and the govt stops wiping the wests rear end all the time, there would be no problems.
And if the court system does not apply to terrorist, then maybe you wouldnt have a problem with someone shooting terrorist altaf in the head without a trial.
Yeah, maybe thats why people voted Musharraf out of power in the 2008 elections. People arent as islamophoebic as you are, and its very evident from the recent weeks that if Musharraf is out, and the govt stops wiping the wests rear end all the time, there would be no problems.
And if the court system does not apply to terrorist, then maybe you wouldnt have a problem with someone shooting terrorist altaf in the head without a trial.
And people voted in Great Zardari and Nawaz and it's no secret that significant portions of Pakistan support taliban and jihadi terrorism. We're better of wiping West's rear than getting beheaded and bombed everyday by the fasadis.
Your idealistic fantasies don't work in an active war zone that much of Pakistan is today. Altaf is not even on the radar of the world's law enforcement agencies, but worldwide jihadis are. Good reason for all of this.
Re: Is it moral for the Govt to sell accused people?
Sa1eem, are you aware of so many so-called groups caught making up planning/plotting terrorism? They got busted... no not the terrorists but the police making up stories got busted and many innocents were released... you know where? in many non-Pakistan places, many of those places were European.
Sa1eem, are you aware of so many so-called groups caught making up planning/plotting terrorism? They got busted... no not the terrorists but the police making up stories got busted and many innocents were released... you know where? in many non-Pakistan places, many of those places were European.
Yes, I am aware of that. Actually, there was a program on British TV that Pakistan is the safest place for anyone accused of Terrorism and being Pakistani is the best nationality for anyone in GTMB, as only government of Pakistan (Musharraf government) who cared for their citizen in GTMB. Actually, there were few British citizens in GTMB too but UK was doing nothing about them. Most Muslim countries never cared for them. Only country that cared and worked to get them back was Pakistan, such that most got released except few during their first few years in GTMB (at the time program was shown, none other than Pakistanis were released because Pak government worked hard to get them released).
Pakistan always claimed (and that is official standing) that no Pakistani citizen was handed over to USA and all Pakistani citizens that reached USA got there from Afghanistan. Actually America asked Killer of journalist Pearl from Pakistan many time and USA even pressurised Pakistan, but Pakistan declined to hand him over even though he had dual nationality, just because in Pakistan his treatment was given just like any other Pakistani.
Many retards do not know but fact is that, in reality Musharraf government treated these retarded terrorists much better than they deserved, not like Nawaz who handed over any wanted terrorists to USA if USA ever desired, without even arresting them officially (like Amil Kansi, Ramzi, etc). That is why, USA done all to get crook politicians back in power.
We also should know that there are some Pakistanis who are so pathetic that they even vote terrorists who were convicted and were given death sentence by not American courts but Pakistani courts. Most surprising thing is that, judges who convicted and gave death sentence to these terrorists are same judges whom these terrorists consider as most trustworthy judges, just because those judges are now in this terrorist payroll. Worse is that, the person who saved the life of these pathetic terrorist is the most hated person by these terrorists.
If anyone do not remember (or have amnesia or do not want to remember) who are those I am referring to, than here is the list:
Pathetic voters: Voters who vote convicted terrorist Nawaz Ganja.
Convicted terrorists who got death sentence from Pakistani court: Nawaz Ganja.
Judges who gave sentences to terrorist Ganja: Many who got sacked on 3rd Nov 2007.
Person who saved the life of terrorist Ganja (Liar and ahsaan faramosh), gave him pardon and let him live in Saudi Arabia: President Musharraf (Nakee kar aur daryia may daal).
What a funny but true story :)
We should know that many in Pakistan are accused of terrorism, many innocent Pakistanis are even convicted as terrorists in Western Countries, BUT there is ONLY ONE CONVICTED TERRORIST WHO HEAD POLITICAL PARTY in PAKISTAN and he is NAWAZ SHAREEF of PML(N).
Re: Is it moral for the Govt to sell accused people?
Saleem, apart from all that 50,000 line racial slurs and name calling, do you think terrorist Altaf Hussain should be handed back to Pakistan, with the same logic that you are using? Nawaz Sharif is in Pakistan, I dont know what you are smoking but Uncle Mush thinks NS and Zardari are innocent.
Saleem, apart from all that 50,000 line racial slurs and name calling, do you think terrorist Altaf Hussain should be handed back to Pakistan, with the same logic that you are using? Nawaz Sharif is in Pakistan, I dont know what you are smoking but Uncle Mush thinks NS and Zardari are innocent.
The person whose most posts are full of racial slurs calling my post as racial slur? What a joke. Are you insane?
Re: Is it moral for the Govt to sell accused people?
[mod]
Massive cleaning done.
Please always stick to the thread subjects and keep away from typical disputes/contentions/prejudices.
When every discussion ends up in the same ditch because of the same reasons, there's some serious problem that's not very hard to identify.
Not many of us are juveniles here so let's all act more responsible like grown-ups, for own respective prestige if not for the forum or constructive debate.
[/mod]