SO MUSA HASSAN DID NOT LIE SAVE HIMSELF FROM AN EMBARRASSMENT OF BEING A LIER

Former top cop turned chicken! Musa fear being question by the defence lawyers because he cannot manipulate them. Also defenc will also have Ramli as their witness and all Musa’s dirty secrets will then come out in court. When someone withdraws his defamation suit against you, it simply means your “defaming” statement against him is truthfully told.parties are avoiding the publicity of a trial. Musa, AG,UMNO kingpins and the underworld.

Former Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan’s decision to drop his defamation suit against Datuk Seri Anmwar Ibrahim proves there was a government plot to fabricate evidence over the 1998 Sodomy I charges, the opposition leader said today.

 

 

Anwar says Musa’s withdrawal proves there was a conspiracy. — File pic

Musa had earlier this morning told the High Court he was withdrawing his suit and had agreed to settle his case out of court, saying he had been there was a “misunderstanding” over his role in the 1998 “black eye” incident where Anwar had been beaten up by the then-IGP Tan Sri Abdul Rahim Noor while in the police lock-up, which left him with bruises, in the run-up to the former deputy prime minister’s high-profile first sodomy trial.

 

“I am thankful and satisfied by the withdrawal of the suit,” Anwar said.

The head of the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) opposition pact said he could now put the court case behind him and focus on preparing for the 13th general election due soon.

“But the question that now arises is that this proves there was a conspiracy and a fabrication of evidence in my prosecution in 1998,” the PKR leader told reporters outside the courtroom.

He said he would not take any legal action against Musa as the ex-policeman had shown “some sort of respect and understanding to move on”.

But Anwar wants a tribunal to be set up to probe Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail’s role in the 1998 case.

“Now there must be a tribunal to investigate Abdul Gani’s role because he has yet to escape from the accusations directly.

“So now we focus on A-G,” Anwar said.

Musa, who served as IGP for four years from 2006 to 2010, had sued Anwar for defamation four years ago, three weeks after the Permatang Pauh MP lodged a report against him in 2008.

In his police report, the PKR leader accused Musa and Abdul Gani of conspiring to cover up the 1998 physical assault against him by Abdul Rahim, which left Anwar with a black eye.

This is indeed one of the darkest chapters in Malaysia’s history, where an innocnt man was convicted and served time. Now we can see how this man endured all the pain & suffering in prison and his family too had their lives turned upside down to serve the ambition of one such evil man.
May GOD in his infinite wisdom see it fit to punish those guilty of sending an innocent man to serve time. Dato Sri may GOD also grant you wisdom and compassion to forgive these men & women who have wronged u terribly
Report let it go for now DSAI . do it when government changes hand . for now, convince the hardcore bn voters not to be stupid for another 5 years . tell us WHAT YOU CAN DO FOR MALAYSIANS beside hunting all the ‘legal crooks’ of malaysia ! 

Musa was at that time Bukit Aman’s assistant criminal investigation chief while Abdul Gani was the lead prosecutor in Anwar’s 1998 sodomy trial.

The former deputy prime minister also alleged that the duo tampered with a medical report and made up false evidence that he had sodomised several people while in the government, for which he was tried and convicted in 1999.

Anwar spent six years in jail before the judgment was later overturned.

The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) had opened up investigations into both Musa and Abdul Gani in 2008 following Anwar’s filing of a police complaint against the senior policeman and the government lawyer.

Former Federal Court judge Datuk Abdul Kadir Sulaiman led a three-man panel into the inquiry against the two men and held the dissenting vote in a majority ruling that cleared Musa and Abdul Gani of power abuse.

PKR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim’s lawyers have denied former inspector-general of police Musa Hassan’s claim that the team had sought a settlement for the defamation suit brought by the latter.he chicken out thinking of the fool that he will be made to look like at the grilling session.

:  one of the more intriguing confrontations in recent judicial history is set for staging before Judge Asmabi Mohamad in the Kuala Lumpur High Court.

Former Inspector-General of Police Musa Hassan is the plaintiff in a defamatory case he filed against Anwar Ibrahim in mid-2008 after the Opposition leader had made several allegations against Musa and Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail in a Police report Anwar lodged on July 1 that year.

Defamation is a difficult area of jurisprudence to parse. About the only plaintiffs to win defamation cases with regularity in recent decades was the government of Lee Kuan Yew.

Respectable opinion attributed Singapore government’s high rate of success in defamatory cases to a compliant judiciary. If defamation is invoked concerning allegations that savour of the truth, the gold standard in cautionary wisdom would be the one offered by the Irish playwright Oscar Wilde after he sued the Marquis of Queensbury upon the latter calling him a sodomite.

Wilde had been accused by the Marquis who was angry at the writer’s relationship with his son, Alfred Douglas. Under cross-examination by the marquis’ lawyer, Edward Carson, then the English Bar’s leading exponent of the art, Wilde was exposed as the homosexual he was. He lost the suit.

The marquis was vindicated and Wilde, ever the aphorist even in defeat, coined “Never sue when the allegations are true,” which now stands as the gold standard in cautionary wisdom where defamation is concerned.

Whether Anwar’s allegations in a police report he lodged in 2008 concerning the deportment of Musa and Gani in respect of investigations leading to the brace of trials Anwar faced in 1998-99 are true will come up for trial tomorrow before Justice Asmabi.

The allegations were that Musa, then a senior investigator with the Police, and A-G Gani, then a senior prosecutor in the A-G’s Chambers, had fabricated evidence in the trials in 1998-99 against Anwar for corruption and abuse of power, and for sodomy.

Anwar’s allegations also concerned evidence relating to the 1999 inquiry by a Royal Commission into the ‘black eye’ incident suffered by Anwar while under police detention following his arrest on September 20, 1998.

Reacting to Anwar’s allegations lodged in the Police report of 2008, Musa issued through his lawyers letters of demand to Anwar to retract and apologise.

When Anwar refused, Musa filed for defamation. Gani, however, ignored the allegations, choosing not to sue.

Top cop speaks out

The nub of Anwar’s allegations concerned the ‘black eye’ incident and the evidence that formed the basis of corruption, abuse of power and sodomy charges that were preferred against him in his trials in 1998-99.

Musa was the senior investigating officer in the initial trial of Anwar for corruption and abuse of power and the later trial for sodomy.

By the time Anwar filed the Police report in July 2008, Musa had risen to become Inspector-General of Police and Gani was promoted to the post of Attorney-General.

According to Anwar’s Police report, Musa and Gani had conspired to fabricate evidence that the ‘black eye’ Anwar suffered while in detention was self-inflicted.

The whole episode of the ‘black eye’ and the corruption and abuse of power and sodomy trials of 1998-99 are enmeshed in a miasma of contention, strands of which are gradually being brought to light by the retrospections of Mat Zain Ibrahim, a now retired police officer who in late 1998 was tasked with the role of investigating the ‘black eye’ incident.

In Police reports and affidavits he has filed in the last few years, Mat Zain claims that Musa and Gani had conspired to fabricate evidence in the ‘black eye’ incident.

In the trial beginning tomorrow, Musa will have his chance of refuting Mat Zain’s claims which are certain to be cited by Anwar’s lawyers as grounds for the dismissal of Musa’s defamation suit.

All efforts by Anwar’s counsel, the late Christopher Fernando, in the 1998-99 trial for corruption and abuse of power to show that Musa, with Gani, had engaged in a conspiracy to fabricate evidence against Anwar ran into a hail of “not relevant” objections by the prosecutor that were sustained by the late Justice Augustine Paul who presided at the trial.

In fact, several rulings on evidential relevance in the course of the trial by Paul, reputedly an expert on evidence, saw the term ‘not relevant’ pass into comic vogue at the trial and in its aftermath.

Whether Musa will find a comparably emollient Judge in Asmabi that he had in Paul in the trials of more than a decade ago is a question that will tantalise observers at tomorrow’s proceedings.

In 1997, Anwar wanted to go after a senior minister, who had been colluding with local authorities to alienate land in Johor, Kedah, Langkawi and Sepang. Of course TUN MAHATHIR won’t have this happen to the then UMNO treasurer. In the 90s, the ACA and the AG opined that there was a case against Rafidah over the allocation of shares to her son-in-law. TUN MAHATHIR stopped the proposed prosecution. In the late 90s, the Director-General of the EPU was “caught” with a rather large bundle of cash in his office drawer by the ACA. Again, TUN MAHATHIR said “no” to the proposed prosecution.What would be different if the MACC had been in place at those times ?

This book does the worthy task of separating the highly charged and pervasive rhetoric about these women from the complexities that rarely surface in the mainstream media. It highlights Ali’s disconnect from her family and how the story she relates of her past is different in their memories. It points to the conflicting statements made by Siddiqui and her family about her children and her whereabouts during the five years she was missing. 

Each short chapter in the book alternates between the Ali’s and Siddiqui’s stories roughly chronologically. Scroggins delves into Ali’s family background, her father’s role as a Somali revolutionary, Ali’s brief flirtation with Islam, her two brief marriages (of which the latter facilitated her passage to Holland), and her rise to political and intellectual stardom in the West. Alongside her story, Scroggins relates Siddiqui’s family’s orthodox Deobandi background and strong political ties with the Zia regime, her education as a neuroscientist in the U.S., and her first marriage and divorce. She explores, in great detail, Siddiqui’s association with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and marriage to his nephew, the multiple and conflicting perspectives about her disappearance for five years, the shooting incident in Ghazni, Afghanistan, her arrest, and her eventual sentencing to life in federal prison.

Reading about these two women’s lives in a parallel fashion is hardly a comfortable experience. I often found myself so engrossed in one woman’s story that I was reluctant to make the switch to the other. The difference becomes especially pronounced in the second half of the book because of the impossibility of narrating their stories in the same fashion. While Hirsi’s life is shaped by mainly ideological and political battles involving the Dutch government, her media appearances, and her relations with her family, Siddiqui’s is mired in a web of conspiracy, association with jihadi groups, confusion about her whereabouts, and passionate pleas on her behalf by figures such as Yvonne Ridley.

As creative and jarring as the pairing of these stories is, it begs the question: how are these women comparable? As Scroggins points out in the conclusion of the book, there is an indisputable difference between a woman who provokes through words and a woman who actively partakes in violence. However, both Ali and Siddiqui insist that a clash of civilizations is inevitable, and it is impossible for “Western” ideals and Islam to coexist. Scroggins also does an excellent job of demonstrating how their perceived roles instigate a clash of civilizations, making their forebodings grotesquely self-fulfilling prophecies. Were it not for Ayaan Hirsi Ali creating the highly provoking film Submission, the gruesome murder of Theo Van Gogh would not have occurred and so deeply affirmed Ali’s statements about the impossibility of assimilation. Aafia Siddiqui’s insistence on the Western war on Islam becomes expounded in her supporters’ fiery rhetoric surrounding her alleged secret imprisonment and torture.

As I read the book, I was reminded of a point made by Melissa Harris Perry during her discussion with Leila Ahmed and Mona Eltahawy: as an academic, she loves nuance, but as a media personality, she knows firsthand that it is the loud, radical, controversial ideas and action that get heard. This trend makes it all the more important to read in-depth accounts about figures such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Aafia Siddiqui, whose extreme perspectives cause uproars and obscure the details surrounding their lives and actions.

This an excellent book for anyone who seeks a more informed understanding of these women and what they came to represent in a post-9/11 highly polarized environment. It also provides a way of examining how the biases opinions that exist about Siddiqui and Ali have been shaped by the emotions these women usually provoke in both their supporters and opposition.

Aafia Siddiqui has been a victim from that fateful moment when she was kidnapped, and sent to Afghanistan–where she was brutally tortured. Her family also faced horrendous pain. A prejudiced jury has now pronounced her guilt–guilty of a crime of shooting at a marine–when there were no bullet holes, and no fingerpring on the gun–the frail MIT graduate has been pronounced guilty of attacking several armed males, somehow snatching their gun and then shooting at them–when she had no clue about guns.

Hopefully she will will the case on appeal.
NEW YORK: Aafia Siddiqui, the Pakistani neuroscientist, was found guilty of attempted murder charges on all seven counts listed in the complaint against her. She was tried on charges of trying to kill American soldiers in Afghanistan on July 28, 2008.
However, the jury did not find her guilty on any pre-meditated murder charge. According to her lawyer, Ms Siddiqui could be given a sentence of up to 35 years.
After the jury left the room Aafia Siddiqui, who was inside, shouted: “I know this is not the verdict of American people, I know where it is coming from.”
Elaine Sharp, a defence attorney, came out of the court room to tell reporters that Ms Siddiqui had asked her to request the people of Pakistan to remain calm and that she has faith in the Almighty.
Charles Swift, the lead defence attorney, said after the verdict that “I have faith in American justice system. We will appeal the verdict. I completely disagree with the verdict given”.
Sentencing will be carried out on May 6, Mr Swift said. According to an attorney familiar with the case, Ms Siddiqui’s own testimony against the advice of her attorney’s could have contributed to her conviction.
AFP adds: The trial has drawn widespread attention because it is the most advanced in a string of current cases being handled by US prosecutors in what is frequently referred to as the “war on terror”. Several other suspects in alleged bomb plots are working their way through the system.
Before adjourning Tuesday afternoon, the jury went over the testimonies of Ms. Siddiqui, Captain Robert Snyder of US Army, who accused her of picking an unsecured gun and firing two shots; FBI Special Agent Gordon Hurley, who was first to inspect the crime scene; and two Afghan police officers — Abdul Qadeer and Bashir.
The jurors also examined the M-4 rifle that Ms. Siddiqui is alleged to have brandished at US personnel.
Before the jury went into deliberation on Monday, Defence lawyer Charles Swift said the group must consider facts as against fear, which the prosecution sought to create by portraying Ms. Siddiqui, a frail woman, as some sort of a commando threatening the US.
He said there was no physical evidence that the M-4 rifle had ever been fired, since no bullets, shell casings or bullet fragments were recovered and no high-velocity bullet holes detected.
Also, there was no evidence that the M-4 was ever fired. No gunpowder residue was found on fabrics or clothing, he added.
Human rights groups had declared Ms Siddiqui missing for five years before the incident in July, when she was arrested outside the Governor’s office in Ghazni.
Her lawyers have said she may be a victim of torture and believe she was kidnapped with her children in March 2003 in Karachi and secretly held in custody for the past five years reportedly at Bagram air base near Kabul.

IT IS HEART RENDERING TO SEE THE FACE OF AN MIT ALUMNI WHO ENJOYED LIFE IN THE US SUBURBS. WE THEN HEAR ABOUT THE CHARGES. THE SAD PART IS THAT SHE SHOULD HAVE BEEN TRIED YEARS AGO AND EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN HER WHEREABOUTS. THE STRANGEST THING ABOUT THIS AFFAIR IS THAT DR. SIDDIQUI WENT TO PAKISTAN WITH HER FAMILY ON A TRIP AND THEN JUST DISAPPEARED. IN THE MURKY WORLD OF CIA RENDITIONS, AND OUTSOURCED PRISON CAMPS, DR. SIDDIQUI BECAME A STATISTIC.

DR AAFIA SHIFTED TO USA, PAKISTAN SEEKS COUNSELOR ACCESS

NEW YORK: Federal Bureau of Investigation FBI has shifted Doctor Aafiya Siddiqui to New York where she would be produce in front of court and could get 20 years of imprisonment in accusation of attacking on American Army officers. While Pakistan has sought counselor access to the detained doctor
Aafia Siddiqui, 36, a Pakistani and former U.S. resident, was arrested July 17 by police in Ghazni province, Afghanistan, the attorney for the Southern District of New York, Michael Garcia, said in a statement.
At the time of her arrest Siddiqui was carrying inside her handbag documents on how to make explosives and descriptions of various U.S. landmarks, including in New York City, Garcia said, citing the complaint filed in Manhattan federal court.
36 years old Dr Aafiya Siddiqui is educated from America, she has been missing since 2003 and different assumptions have been assumed on her missing.
In 2004 US Attorney General John Ashcroft and Director FBI Robert Muller had included her name among the list of Al-Qaida member who were most wanted by FBI.
Talking to a private TV, Dr Aafiya’s sister Doctor Fouzia Siddiqui has said that her sister’s life is in danger and all the allegations are baseless because a single allegation has not yet been proven against her and she appealed to Government of Pakistan to help her sister and bring her Pakistan.
Meanwhile Pakistani ambassador to US Hussain Haqqani has filed a request with the US authorities seeking counselor access to Dr Aafia.
Memanwhile Accusing US forces of secretly holding Aafia Siddiqui for last five years, Dr Fauzia Siddiqui Tuesday said her sister is innocent and accused US forces of secretly holding her for the last five years.
Sister of Aafia Siddiqui, Dr Fauzia Siddiqui expressed these views amid tears in a crowded press conference on Tuesday in Karachi Press Club.
On the occasion was present Chairman of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan Iqbal Haider.
Dr Fauzia Siddiqui urged Government of Pakistan, Human Rights Organization, Political Circles and others to take gigantic steps to save her sister.
“What a mockery that after five years in detention Aafia is suddenly discovered in Afghanistan,” Fauzia Siddiqui who was literally in cries told the press conference.
“I decided to break my silence to say that one is innocent until proven guilty. My sister is innocent and has never been actually accused of any crime,” Fauzia pointed.
Responding to a question, weeping sister said that Aafia was tortured for five years until one day US authorities announce that they have found her in Afghanistan, which shows how they abused their power and tortured an innocent woman without committing any crime.
The family has no news of Siddiqui’s three children, who went missing with her, she stressed.
Fauzia Siddiqui also said the family had received death threats warning them not to talk about the case.
“Our lives are in serious danger,” she told the press conference.
“We are receiving threats through phone calls and SMS not to discuss or pursue Aafia’s case. I do not know who are the people threatening us,” she maintained.
In another question, Fauzia said that all the allegations leveled on her sister are totally baseless. But, I count on you, the people in the media, to be the independent voice of reason when some people in the corridors of power say they have a person locked in cell for five years because they are guilty of a crime to DEMAND the evidence, and to presume the person is innocent. This is a story of much greater significance than just my sister or one woman. Her rape and torture is a crime beyond anything she was ever accused of (which was basically nothing) and this is a slap on the honor of a whole people. The perpetrators of those crimes are the ones who need to be brought to account. That is the real crime of terror here, furious Fauzia held. On the other hand, Iqbal Haider, Secretary general of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, said the charges were “false and fabricated” and called for Aafia Siddiqui to be tried by an independent tribunal.
“We demand that Aafia’s trial should not take place in Guantanamo Bay. We demand that Aafia’s relations be allowed immediate access to her,” Haider told news conference.
Siddiqui studied at the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology and vanished in 2003 while visiting relatives in Karachi, Pakistan
Deja vu in sodomy chargeThe ‘Sodomy 2.0′ version unfolded on June 28 when PKR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim’s 23-year-old former aide Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan lodged a police report. He claimed to have been sodomised by Anwar in a condominium in Damansara.

 In 1997, Anwar wanted to go after a senior minister, who had been colluding with local authorities to alienate land in Johor, Kedah, Langkawi and Sepang. Of course TUN MAHATHIR won’t have this happen to the then UMNO treasurer. In the 90s, the ACA and the AG opined that there was a case against Rafidah over the allocation of shares to her son-in-law. TUN MAHATHIR stopped the proposed prosecution. In the late 90s, the Director-General of the EPU was “caught” with a rather large bundle of cash in his office drawer by the ACA. Again, TUN MAHATHIR said “no” to the proposed prosecution.What would be different if the MACC had been in place at those times ?

 

Protesters should not be beaten when they are arrested, said former inspector-general of police Musa Hassan in reference to last month’s Bersih 3.0 rally that resulted in widespread claims of police brutality.

When he was the inspector-general of police (IGP), Musa Hassan had a recurring nightmare – that wealthy underworld figures could buy influence among police personnel, as well as ruling and opposition politicians.

Taking the popular ‘Godfather’ movies as a reference point, he highlighted the control that the mafia had exerted on US politicians first and law enforcement agencies next

Ghosts do not die. That is the power of a phantom. You can bury of the cases to
the chanting of the prosecutor’s fraudulent funeral rites, but its restless spirit keeps rattling through the haunted house of the UMNO Party’s premier family. The latest rattle, in which the shocking revelations that Prime Minister Najib Razak and his wife Rosmah Mansor were involved in hatching sodomy accusations against Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim  Ghani Patail has the chance to go down in his nation’s history as either a colossal waste of a promise, or as the exorcist who rid Malaysia of the ghost of all  the ghost ., the then chief minister of Malacca, Abdul Rahim Thamby Chik, was reported to have raped a 15-year-old schoolgirl (under Malaysian law, sex with a minor constitutes statutory rape). Lim Guan Eng, currently the chief minister of Penang and the then MP for Kota Melaka, spoke out against the rape of a minor after the girl’s  .grandmother-cum-guardian, who was also Lim’s constituent, turned to him for help.

 THE ABUSES BY A-G GANI PATAIL

by Din Merican
 
New York, NY – An important question confronting courts in the United States is whether individuals subjected to torture and other abuse in the “war on terror” can obtain a judicial remedy for their mistreatment. A recent decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Virginia, concludes that they may not.
The decision, which throws out the civil suit of former enemy combatant Jose Padilla, is troubling, both in its result and potential sweep. It not only threatens core freedoms protected by the constitution, but also undermines the principle that government officials should be held accountable for their illegal conduct.
Padilla was the victim of one of the most extraordinary uses of military detention power after the 9/11 attacks. In May 2002, Padilla was arrested by the FBI at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport and detained as a material witness in connection with the government’s investigation into the attacks. The government suspected that Padilla was involved in a plot to explode a radioactive “dirty bomb” in the United States.
But rather than charge Padilla with a crime under various anti-terrorism statutes, President Bush declared him an “enemy combatant” and transferred Padilla to a navy brig in South Carolina, where he was imprisoned without access to a lawyer, a court, or his family for nearly two years. While at the brig, Padilla was held in total isolation for long periods of time, forced to endure extreme sensory deprivation, subjected to painful stress positions, and threatened with death.
In November 2005, with the Supreme Court poised to decide whether to hear Padilla’s legal challenge, the Bush administration ended his military detention, indicting Padilla on criminal charges and subsequently transferring him to a federal prison. The transfer rendered Padilla’s challenge to his continued military detention moot, and the Supreme Court declined to hear his case. The question remained, however, whether Padilla could seek reparations for his brutal treatment during his years of military confinement at the brig.
Seeking reparations
Padilla accordingly commenced suit against former Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other senior officials responsible for his detention and treatment as an enemy combatant. The complaint, which sought only nominal damages, was not about money, but a principle: In the United States, no person is above the law and even a state of war is not a “blank cheque” when it comes to the rights of US citizens.
In dismissing Padilla’s suit at the pleading stage, before the defendants were even required to answer the complaint, the appeals court necessarily assumed the truth of Padilla’s allegations. The dismissal instead rested on the more sweeping proposition that Padilla had no right to pursue any claims in federal court, no matter how brutally he was treated.
The dispute in Padilla’s case centred mainly on interpretation of a 1971 case, Bivens v Six Unknown Named Agents, in which the Supreme Court had established that individuals could sue federal officials for violations of their constitutional rights. (Bivens itself involved a warrantless search and arrest in violation of the Fourth Amendment.)
“The court’s decision effectively creates a national security exception to the general principle that government officials may be held accountable for the torture and prolonged arbitrary detention of US citizens.”
There is no question that Padilla’s prolonged incommunicado detention and gross mistreatment would have qualified for relief under Bivens, had it occurred as part of a “normal” law enforcement investigation – or had Padilla been a “regular” federal prisoner. The government argued, however, that because Padilla was detained by the military in the name of national security, his suit presented “special factors counselling hesitation” by the courts, thus placing it within an exception to Bivens liability. In this sensitive area, they argued, judges should not allow litigation to proceed – no matter how egregious the constitutional violation – unless Congress expressly provides for a remedy (which Congress has not).
The appeals court accepted the government’s argument, concluding that allowing Padilla’s suit to proceed would infringe on the prerogatives of the political branches, notwithstanding that Congress had clearly and categorically prohibited torture and other forms of mistreatment. The appeals court also found that judges lacked competence to adjudicate Padilla’s claims, concluding that litigation would enmesh them in assessing government decisions about the use of interrogation methods and risk disclosure of classified information and other sensitive intelligence.
Additionally, the court dismissed Padilla’s claims under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Padilla, a practicing Muslim, maintained that the government had severely impeded his practice of Islam, including by denying him access to a Quran, to facilitate interrogations and deliberately confusing him about prayer times and the direction of Mecca. While RFRA plainly covered these violations of religious freedom, the court questioned whether that statute’s protections applied to enemy combatants in military detention. In any event, the court said, the defendants were immune from suit because RFRA’s applicability to enemy combatants was not clearly established at the time.
A national security exception
The court’s decision effectively creates a national security exception to the general principle that government officials may be held accountable for the torture and prolonged arbitrary detention of US citizens. That exception is premised on a limited role for courts in enforcing constitutional protections and an aversion to holding officials liable even for the most lawless conduct in matters involving terrorism. The exception, moreover, has no limit: Under the court’s reasoning, the result would have been the same if the government had waterboarded Padilla – or cut off the tips of his fingers.
Perhaps, the most cruel irony is that Padilla’s military detention was made possible only because the government invoked labels such as “national security” and “enemy combatant” to circumvent established rules – above all, the requirement that individuals arrested in the United States be promptly charged with a crime and not thrown in a military stockade. Extracting an individual from the regular criminal justice system thus became the predicate for immunising government officials for any and all abuse that followed. Padilla’s case demonstrates how emergency powers, even if falsely asserted and illegally invoked, can swallow the rule of law.
Padilla, to be sure, is not the most sympathetic plaintiff. Following his transfer to federal court to face charges, he was convicted of providing material support to terrorism and received a lengthy prison term. (Though it bears noting that the conviction was not based on the “dirty bomb” allegations, but on vague assertions of peripheral involvement in “jihad” during the 1990s.)
The Fourth Circuit’s decision, however, did not turn on the fact that Padilla had been convicted of a crime. It applies equally to any US citizen placed in military detention, even if that person is never charged with a crime and is innocent of all wrongdoing.
The Fourth Circuit’s decision will not be the last word on the subject. Padilla can appeal the decision to the full appeals court or to the Supreme Court, and his separate suit against John Yoo, an architect of Bush-era torture policies, is still pending before a federal appeals court in California. In addition, other suits by US-citizen torture victims are pending in other courts.
The Fourth Circuit’s decision, nevertheless, represents a significant setback for the rule of law. It demonstrates, above all, the corrosive effects of torture, which warps legal institutions and values, ultimately co-opting courts themselves, as they become instruments of impunity.
id this case ever come to court in the first place? Why were public funds and facilities wasted to satiate the anger of a jealous husband out to destroy his former wife and her so-called enticer? And all these troubles and wastage of public facilities just for a public apology? Who paid for the court costs, the hundreds of hours that the magistrate spent hearing the case that closed with a whimper?
This is a prosecutorial misconduct, a prosecution scandal! Beyond that, this is another example of the abuses by A-G Gani Patail of his powers as the Public Prosecutor under Article 145 of the Federal Constitution. How much more abuses are we to tolerate of this A-G?!
Who is Wong Kian Kheong (WKK)?
To understand how a small private matter of no consequence to the public can end up being a prosecution case, albeit by way of a private prosecution, one has to understand the players behind the Daphne Iking’s case. It was reported that Wong Kian Kheong (WKK as how he is known in  legal circles) is leading the prosecution team. Who is this WKK?
WKK was once a Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) and is a blue eyed boy of A-G Gani Patail. There are a lot of rumours in legal circles about WKK’s closeness to A-G Gani Patail, not less that if you want things done with A-G Chambers, go to see WKK.   This rumour may be fuelled by the fact that WKK runs a flourishing criminal practice in very posh offices. But that rumour could just be pure jealousy and business rivalry. Then again, WKK has achieved amazing things that many criminal lawyers could not do. One example frequently given is the fact that WKK was the lawyer who defended Razak Baginda
Malaysians could not possibly forget the Altantuya murder case, the Mongolian beauty who was C4ed and blown to pieces. The main culprit in that case, Razak Baginda was acquittedwithout his defence being called, while the special forces policemen, two Unit Tindakan Khas(UTK) officers(right) were convicted and sentenced to death.
Razak Baginda was the close aide and adviser of PM Najib when Najib was the country’s Defence Minister. Altantuya and Razak Baginda were linked to Najib in the Scorpene Submarine Scandal that to this day still stained and haunts PM Najib’s premiership. MINDEF has taken steps to can any story on the Scorpene submarines that could not submerge and stay underwater.
WKK’s handling of Razak Baginda’s defence in the Altantuya murder case became controversial from the very beginning when Razak Baginda managed to get bail despite facing a murder charge. In an unprecedented step, WKK later filed a highly controversial affidavit in which explosive revelations were made, pointing the murderers to be two UTK officers, Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri and Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar. Eventually, these two UTK officers were found guilty of kidnapping and killing Altantuya while Razak Baginda was acquitted.
Upon his acquittal, Razak Baginda immediately announced that he was leaving the country to pursue further studies. That was a really absurd excuse for making an escape. Scholarship holders would tell you that if you default or dispute a PTPTN study loan, the Immigration Department would not hesitate to impound your passport and bar you from leaving the country. Here, a man summarily acquitted for murder while there could be an appeal, was allowed to leave the country. That was the greatest escapade aided and abetted by the A-G Chambers and the Immigration Department!
As a fait accompli, A-G Gani Patail announced that he, as the Public Prosecutor, would not be appealing against Razak Baginda’s acquittal. The A-G  gave the excuse that he  respected the court’s finding of fact to acquit Razak and thus would not pursue the case any further. This was clearly a travesty of justice!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s