10-03-2006, 01:10 AM
Nandita Haskar of the Geelani case fame is now pitching in for Afzal Guru:
http://www.indianexpress.com/story/13656.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->There are three principal reasons why hanging Mohammad Afzal would violate basic principles of natural justice and equity. First, the charge sheet was against 12 persons: three Pakistanis (Masood Azhar, Tariq Ahmed and Gazi Baba) who were said to have master-minded the attack (none of the three were arrested or brought to trial. If Pakistan were to extradite them they would be protected from death penalty); five Pakistanis who actually attacked Parliament and were responsible for the death of nine members of our security forces; and the four people who actually stood trial. Afzal was not responsible for anyoneâs death or injury. He did not mastermind the attack. The Supreme Court has noted that there is no direct evidence of his involvement. Second, all the three courts, including the Supreme Court, have acquitted him of the charges under POTA of belonging to either a terrorist organisation or a terrorist gang. Third, he was denied a fair trial. The investigation was full of illegalities and the courts noted with concern that evidence was fabricated and he never had a lawyer who represented him. The Designated Judge passed an order giving Afzal the right to cross-examine witnesses but even a person with legal training without knowledge of criminal law would find it difficult to conduct such a trial. The Supreme Court has held that âThe incident, which resulted in heavy casualties, had shaken the entire nation and the collective conscience of the society will only be satisfied if capital punishment is awarded to the offender.â Can the collective conscience of our people be satisfied if a fellow citizen is hanged without having a chance to defend himself? We have not even had a chance to hear Afzalâs story. Hanging Mohammad Afzal will only be a blot on our democracy . <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
op-ed:
http://www.indianexpress.com/story/13782.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->This refers to Nandita Haksarâs article advocating a rethink on the death sentence awarded to Mohammad Afzal for being part of the conspiracy that led to the terrorist attack on Parliament in 2001 (âWe havenât even heard Afzalâs storyâ, IE, September 30). Haksar states that she is not questioning the courtâs verdict, only the sentence awarded; yet her argument does not seem to be reasonable. For instance, she maintains that Afzal must not be hanged because among the others convicted in the case, several are in Pakistan and therefore cannot be awarded the death penalty even if extradited. In other words, because Afzalâs co-conspirators cannot be hanged for the simple reason that they are hiding in a different country, Afzal too should be given a reprieve!
Similarly flawed is her argument that Afzal should not be awarded the death penalty because he is not a terrorist himself nor does he belong to any terrorist organisation. Indeed, the Supreme Court itself has recognised this, as Haksar points out. But there is a much larger issue here. Afzal was as much a prime mover of the attack on Parliament as Tiger Memon and Dawood Ibrahim were of the 1993 blasts in Mumbai. Surely Haksar does not imply that, by the same token, Dawood and Memon should be spared the death penalty because they do not belong to any ârecognisedâ terrorist group and have not been extradited to India?Â
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
http://www.indianexpress.com/story/13656.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->There are three principal reasons why hanging Mohammad Afzal would violate basic principles of natural justice and equity. First, the charge sheet was against 12 persons: three Pakistanis (Masood Azhar, Tariq Ahmed and Gazi Baba) who were said to have master-minded the attack (none of the three were arrested or brought to trial. If Pakistan were to extradite them they would be protected from death penalty); five Pakistanis who actually attacked Parliament and were responsible for the death of nine members of our security forces; and the four people who actually stood trial. Afzal was not responsible for anyoneâs death or injury. He did not mastermind the attack. The Supreme Court has noted that there is no direct evidence of his involvement. Second, all the three courts, including the Supreme Court, have acquitted him of the charges under POTA of belonging to either a terrorist organisation or a terrorist gang. Third, he was denied a fair trial. The investigation was full of illegalities and the courts noted with concern that evidence was fabricated and he never had a lawyer who represented him. The Designated Judge passed an order giving Afzal the right to cross-examine witnesses but even a person with legal training without knowledge of criminal law would find it difficult to conduct such a trial. The Supreme Court has held that âThe incident, which resulted in heavy casualties, had shaken the entire nation and the collective conscience of the society will only be satisfied if capital punishment is awarded to the offender.â Can the collective conscience of our people be satisfied if a fellow citizen is hanged without having a chance to defend himself? We have not even had a chance to hear Afzalâs story. Hanging Mohammad Afzal will only be a blot on our democracy . <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
op-ed:
http://www.indianexpress.com/story/13782.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->This refers to Nandita Haksarâs article advocating a rethink on the death sentence awarded to Mohammad Afzal for being part of the conspiracy that led to the terrorist attack on Parliament in 2001 (âWe havenât even heard Afzalâs storyâ, IE, September 30). Haksar states that she is not questioning the courtâs verdict, only the sentence awarded; yet her argument does not seem to be reasonable. For instance, she maintains that Afzal must not be hanged because among the others convicted in the case, several are in Pakistan and therefore cannot be awarded the death penalty even if extradited. In other words, because Afzalâs co-conspirators cannot be hanged for the simple reason that they are hiding in a different country, Afzal too should be given a reprieve!
Similarly flawed is her argument that Afzal should not be awarded the death penalty because he is not a terrorist himself nor does he belong to any terrorist organisation. Indeed, the Supreme Court itself has recognised this, as Haksar points out. But there is a much larger issue here. Afzal was as much a prime mover of the attack on Parliament as Tiger Memon and Dawood Ibrahim were of the 1993 blasts in Mumbai. Surely Haksar does not imply that, by the same token, Dawood and Memon should be spared the death penalty because they do not belong to any ârecognisedâ terrorist group and have not been extradited to India?Â
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->