It is worth mentioning that a Supreme Court Justice in Sri Lanka was tossed out by Impeachment (in land acquisition) for blocking an ordinance by the State , a new judge appointed and promptly the decks were cleared for the Bill which was passed .
Story:
Dr. Sunil Cooray is a senior lawyer who is very well known in Sri Lanka. He has been in legal practice for 46 years. He is the author of the two volumes of the authoritative text Principles of Administrative Law in Sri Lanka. Basil Fernando of the Asian Human Rights Commission interviews Dr. Sunil Cooray on practice of torture in Sri Lanka.
Basil Fernando: You have done several cases in Sri Lanka relating to torture. Could you tell us a bit about your experience?
Sunil Cooray: In torture cases, I have appeared for both the petitioner and, on a few occasions, the respondent police officers. My experience is that the court generally leans in favour of the respondents. That is to say, as far as possible they try to claim that the case for the petitioner has not been proved. If I am for the respondents then I am OK. But I’ve found that for the petitioner it is a slightly uphill task to convince judges that police officers and prison officers have committed torture. That has been my experience.
BF: Why do you think this is? In a courtroom, both sides must be equal and evidence must be assessed accordingly. For example, in Sri Lanka, medical evidence and similar things are used. Is the difficulty you mentioned the result of some kind of psychological bias?
SC: It is, I suppose, something like a psychological situation, because most of our judges in the Supreme Court – and that is where all fundamental rights cases are heard – come from the Attorney General’s Department. Throughout their lives as practicing lawyers in the department they have been in touch with police officers, and they have a tendency to believe what the police say rather than what an ordinary citizen has to say. I think that is part of the problem.
BF: Now you would have seen this book Narrative of Justice In Sri Lanka told through stories of torture victims?
SC: Yes I have seen it.
BF: There are 400 cases and that is a very large number of cases. Why do you think such a widespread practice exists?
SC: I think that there are various reasons, but I also think that there are things that can be put in place to minimise or even eliminate torture. I think there are numerous reasons why torture is committed and one reason might be that some police officers have sadistic tendencies and if they get hold of an innocent man, a defenseless man, they want to satisfy their sadism by beating him up. And it also happens that many police officers drink liquor in the evenings so they are badly under the influence of alcohol and they want to have a little fun with these defenseless people who have no one to turn at that time. Those are mainly poor people, and they are harassed and tortured.
There are other reasons as well. For instance, a person may be caught up in a case, rightly or wrongly, and the police may be under instructions from somebody else that torture should be committed by them on that man. This may be for political reasons or similar. Even a straight police officer may be under some compulsion in those circumstances because he might fear that unless he complies he may face a transfer order or some disciplinary proceedings or similar. They also resort to torture to extort money and that also depends on the wages of the police officers. So those are some aspects to be looked into. Police officers should be paid a living wage so that they can maintain themselves and their families in reasonable comfort, and lack of that may be one reason. And then of course there is a general feeling, and some judges and lawyers agree, that torture is something that should not be totally prohibited because according to them torture is an integral part of investigations. That is a completely wrong view and of course is completely against the law but unfortunately it is an embedded idea in the heads of some of our judges and lawyers. And that is one reason why they tend to side with the police officers who are accused of committing torture rather than siding with the petitioner.
BF: Would it be correct to say that at no stage, either by the government or the high ranking officers of the police, a sincere message has been given to the police that torture is wrong?
SC: I think that is so. I don’t think that there is any sincerity when higher ranking police officers tell their lower grades not to commit torture; it is taken with a pinch of salt. They think it is just a matter of words that torture should not be committed. I think what you said is quite right.
BF: So, in other words, the use of torture is a matter of accepted unofficial policy?
SC: Some sort of accepted unofficial policy, but I am sure that sort of policy is losing ground. I am sure this idea, which is in the back of the heads of our judges, lawyers, and senior police officers, is losing ground and I hope the day will come when the idea does not exist anymore because it is brutal. By modern standards it is brutal to commit torture and I hope the day will dawn when the idea is eliminated totally from our lawyers and judges.
It is fact, as I have been maintaining, all terrorists are ‘Psychopathic Killers first and Ideology for them is a Cloak’ be it Osama Bin Laden or the slain LTTE Chief.Prabhakaran.
If one were to look at the Freedom Fighters or Religious Heads you would find all of them abhor violence.
It is the scum like these killers who murder innocent standers by , including women and children.
Interviews with these terrorists confirm this.
Story:
Interview with a Terrorism Suspect.
“Women’s Prison, 18 Sept 2006
Yes, I said I would bomb them. I said I would kill them. Would I really kill them? Yes. I hate them all.
Because they don let me go to Hollan.
Listen. My Englis is no good. But please try to understan. I jus want go to Hollan. And I need your help. I am no terroriss.
Yes, I want kill them. I want bomb them. But I am NO TERRORISS.
I jus want go to Hollan. I haf to see my sister. Real sister. Please. I am no terroriss.
My sister liff in Hollan. Because I haf Indonesian passpor, I must haf fisa to go there. An before I haf fisa, I must haf so many thing to show Embassy. Long-long list of thing.
I just want go to Hollan. I haf sister in Hollan. I do. Real sister. She is sick and I want to see her. I will stay in her flat in Hollan.
Embassy tell me I must haf proof. Oderwise I can’t get fisa. I must show them letter from my sister. So Embassy can know where I will stay in Hollan.”
The neo-Nazi told me that he loves killing people. He also told me, “All terrorists are like me. They come up with an ideology to justify killing, but the desire to kill comes first.” I do not accept his theory of terrorism, but I did not argue with him. He admitted to having tortured animals as a child, but he seemed somewhat ashamed, as if he knew that I might conclude he is a psychopath. He did not want to tell me how many people he had killed, but he said there were a lot. He had also tortured prisoners held at a camp in Bosnia and confessed he was frustrated that he didn’t get the same pleasure out of torturing people that he did out of killing them….
The older one wore an elephant-gray shalwar and kameez, wrinkled in the humidity like slept-in pajamas, over a colossal frame. Traditional Pakistani slippers, with turned-up pointy toes and mirrors, gave his feet an incongruously elfin look. He walked heavily, ostentatiously relaxed. His hands, which were soft and brown, looked big enough to crush me with a single swat.
It was the younger one, a new recruit, that got to me. He was beautiful. Slim, but strong-looking, with luminous skin and clear, intelligent eyes. He had the obligatory beard of a fundamentalist, but it was neatly trimmed, as if he were having trouble giving up some of the habits of privilege. He wore a hand-embroidered, stark-white shalwar, perfectly pressed. His English was refined. Right away it seemed to me he was specially chosen to meet with me, to make it seem as if the group were populated with boys like him…
“The emir decides who goes to fight. He decides each person’s role in the struggle. He has not selected me to fight,” Ahmed admitted…
Motherhood is something that is unique which no Male can dream of in terms Love. Hinduism calls as Mother as The First God.
It goes on to add that to a Man?Woman,Mother is God even if she were to be a prostitute and has to be worshipped.
Now we have mothers who are unfit to be even called decent animals.
Islamic Punishment is the best in these cases.
”
Jennifer Barnes, 39, is currently in custody after investigators established probable cause to hold her for the abuse of her 10-year-old adopted son. The abuse was described as sexual, but I am having trouble labeling it. Well… other than “damn evil,” that is…
According to police, the young victim told them that his adoptive mother bound his hands and feet, forced dog shit into his mouth and then duct taped his mouth shut so that he could not spit it out. The victim also described her burning his penis with a lighter and sodomizing him repeatedly with his own toothbrush. Police reports described another incident when the mother repeatedly burned the victim’s penis with a curling iron before tying a necklace around it causing it to bleed. The abuse was reported to have occurred between May of 2010 and August 22 of this year.
Are these the claims of an unhappy adopted child? It doesn’t sound like it. It was discovered during a forensic physical examination that the child had large scars on his pelvic area and legs, consistent with healed burns. He also had three distinct scars consistent with the claim of being sodomized.
Barnes reportedly told detectives that she was the sole caregiver during the time of the incidents. She also reportedly provided inconsistent statements to investigators. Police also said that Barnes denied having any knowledge of the child’s injuries or the scars.
Barnes was arrested and charged with sexual conduct with a minor and child abuse charges. Barnes is scheduled to appear in court on Sept. 15. She remains in custody without bond.
…and then there is the problem with the hair. Jennifer, Jennifer, Jennifer…
She has denied wanting to kill the child in October 2010, as has her boyfriend, who lives in Britain.
Officers from Oslo questioned Chaudhry’s boyfriend with the help of Scotland Yard just before Christmas.
The boyfriend, who is not the girl’s father and who has not been named, became romantically involved with Chaudhry over the internet but had only met her once.
When a Government is engaged in fighting a war or against terrorism,it becomes impossible not to resort to third degree when a suspect is interrogated, in the larger interest of the country.
But it is also possible that this is likely to be misused.
As to the non provision of adequate protection in the Constitution against wrong judgements enough provision for Appeal have been provided..
Judgements , in the final analysis are subjective and depends on the interpretation of the Law, which again is conditioned by one’s dispositions.
In this case an action has been proposed and is rejected.
This may mean anything, that the action has been contemplated or the establishment had been very humanitarian in rejecting the proposal.
Ultimately every thing boils down to this-whether the individual has done what he had thought as Right with the available facts at that point of time.
Civil Rights people forget that those affected/ killed by the accused also have Civil Rights.
Society has a right to defend itself.
Story:
– A six-year-old memo from within the George W. Bush administration that came to light this week acknowledges that White House-approved interrogation techniques amounted to “war crimes.” The memo’s release has called attention to what has changed since President Barack Obama took office, but it also raises questions about what hasn’t.
The Bush White House tried to destroy every copy of the memo, written by then-State Department counselor Philip Zelikow. Zelikow examined tactics like waterboarding — which simulates drowning — and concluded that there was no way they were legal, domestically or internationally.
“We are unaware of any precedent in World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, or any subsequent conflict for authorized, systematic interrogation practices similar to those in question here,” Zelikow wrote. The memo has been obtained by George Washington University’s National Security Archive and Wired’s Spencer Ackerman.
But while Democrats are using the memo as evidence of a new post-torture era under Obama, human rights activists, civil libertarians and opponents of excessive secrecy say they see many ways in which the country’s moral compass is still askew — and in some ways even more so than before.
“If your baseline is the Bush years, it’s night and day,” said Tom Blanton, director of the National Security Archive. “If your baselines are a set of first principles, as the ACLU calls for, or as us openness advocates call for, then your situation is: Is the glass half full or the glass half empty?”
Obama has refused to pursue legal action against those who may have engaged in law-breaking under his predecessor’s watch — saying he prefers to “look forward instead of looking backward.” To some, this indicates there is little assurance that the U.S. won’t torture again in the future.
“The administration has clearly disavowed torture, and that is an important and welcome thing,” said Jameel Jaffer, a national security expert at the American Civil Liberties Union.
“But they’re steadily building a framework for impunity.”
When it comes to issues like warrantless surveillance, “continuity is the rule and not the exception and in fact in some very important areas this administration has gone even farther than the Bush Administration did,” Jaffer said.
Jaffer said the idea that the government can mark an American for death without any judicial oversight is something the framers of the Constitution “would have found totally foreign to the project they were engaged in.”
“I think there are many Democrats out there who are quiet because they trust President Obama,” Jaffer said. But, he added, “there’s no doubt that the power we’re giving President Obama will be available to a future president.”
Jaffer noted that another way things may be worse today than during the Bush era is that at least back then, many people thought things would change dramatically once Bush left office, and that his actions wouldn’t establish legal precedents.
“We didn’t worry so much about that because the Bush Administration was seen as an outlier and an aberration, and the Bush precedent wouldn’t have been seen as weighty,” Jaffer said.
In this Dec. 16, 2005 file photo a watch tower overlooks the area near the Polish intelligence school just outside of Stare Kiejkuty, Poland. The installation has become the focal point of allegations of secret CIA prisons in Poland.-Huff.Post.
After Guantanamo Bay,the US now is caught using another country for interrogating suspects by third degree, probably to escape notice by Civil Rights Groups,Law makers and the Media in the US.
CIA is reported to have been running a secret torture prison in Poland.
There is no match for US or the CIA to abuse Human Rights and interference in other country.
”
For years, the notion that Poland could allow the CIA to operate a secret prison in a remote lake region was treated as a crackpot idea by the country’s politicians, journalists and the public.
A heated political debate this week reveals how dramatically the narrative has changed.
In a string of revelations and political statements, Polish leaders have come closer than ever to acknowledging that the United States ran a secret interrogation facility for terror suspects in 2002 and 2003 in the Eastern European country.
Some officials recall the fear that prevailed after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and defend the tough stance that former U.S. President George W. Bush took against terrorists.
But the debate is sometimes tinged with a hint of disappointment with Washington, as if Poland’s young democracy had been led astray – ethically and legally – by the superpower that it counts as a key ally, and then left alone to deal with the fallout.
Prime Minister Donald Tusk said Thursday that Poland has become the “political victim” of leaks from U.S. officials that brought to light aspects of the secret rendition program.
In his most forthcoming comments on the matter to date, Tusk said an ongoing investigation into the case is proof of Poland’s democratic credentials and that Poland cannot be counted on in the future in such clandestine enterprises.
“Poland will no longer be a country where politicians – even if they are working arm-in-arm with the world’s greatest superpower – could make some deal somewhere under the table and then it would never see daylight,” said Tusk, who took office four years after the site was shuttered.
You must be logged in to post a comment.