As Chinese Stocks Slip, Funds Move In

Sphere: Related Content

And the Pakistani stock markets have a nose dive with trillion of rupees into ashtray.

Chinese shares fell to their lowest intraday level in nearly four years on Wednesday, and some foreign fund managers say they are ready to jump in.

The benchmark Shanghai Composite Index for shares listed on mainland China, known as A shares, briefly dipped below the 2,000 level for the first time since February 2009, before closing at 2,004.17. The index has fallen almost 9% so far this year amid worries over a slowing economy and the uncertainty surrounding a planned once-a-decade leadership change.

That makes it one of the world's worst-performing equities markets in an otherwise positive year. As of ...

CIA sends ISI monthly faxes about drone attacks: WSJ

Sphere: Related Content

After blasphemous caricatures and profane and sacrilegious video by orthodox christian extremist in America,  posing innocence themselves. U.S.A has attacked once again hammered Pakistan by publishing the undermentioned false story that is self-explanatory!

About once a month the Central Intelligence Agency sends a fax to a general at Pakistan’s intelligence service outlining broad areas where the US intends to conduct strikes with drone aircraft, according to US officials.

The Pakistanis, who in public oppose the program, don’t respond.

This was stated in a report published by the Wall Street Journal.

The fax would not mention any specific target but outline the boundaries of the airspace the drones would use—large areas along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border referred to as flight “boxes” because they are shaped like three-dimensional rectangles in the sky, the report stated.

On this basis, plus the fact that Pakistan continues to clear airspace in the targeted areas, the US government assumes it has tacit consent to conduct strikes within the borders of a sovereign nation, according to officials familiar with the program.

In public speeches, Obama administration officials have portrayed the US’ use of drones to kill wanted militants around the world as being on firm legal ground. In those speeches, officials stopped short of directly discussing the CIA’s drone program in Pakistan because the operations are covert.

According to the report, the US justifies the legality of its drone attacks by citing Pakistan’s silence as tacit consent  but it is  also concerned about setting precedents for other countries, including Russia or China, that might conduct targeted killings as such weapons proliferate in the future.

Because there is little precedent for the classified US drone program, international law doesn’t speak directly to how it might operate. That makes the question of securing consent all the more critical, legal specialists say.

Pakistan also has considered challenging the legality of the program at the United Nations.

“No country and no people have suffered more in the epic struggle against terrorism than Pakistan,” Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari told the UN General Assembly Tuesday. “Drone strikes and civilian casualties on our territory add to the complexity of our battle for hearts and minds through this epic struggle.”

The report said that Pakistan believes the CIA continues to send notifications for the sole purpose of giving it legal cover.

Some in the US also worry about the possibility of Pakistan playing both sides as  a lack of a Pakistani response to US notifications might be a way for Pakistan to meet seemingly contradictory goals i.e  on one hand it lets the CIA continue using its airspace but on the other hand also distancing the government of Pakistan from the program, which is deeply unpopular among Pakistanis.

Government consent provides the firmest legal footing, legal experts say. The US has that in Yemen, whose government assists with US strikes against an al Qaeda affiliate. In Somalia, the nominal government, which controls little territory, has welcomed US military strikes against militants.

In an April speech, White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan said the administration has concluded there is nothing in international law barring the US from using lethal force against a threat to the US, despite the absence of a declared war, provided the country involved consents or is unable or unwilling to take action against the threat.

John Bellinger, the top State Department legal adviser in the George W. Bush administration, was of the view that the US is “not unreasonable to assume consent” from Pakistan for the use of drones, “particularly when the US conducts repeated attacks and it’s open and obvious.”

Giving details of the procedure the reports says that there was a more open channel of communication, until the raid that killed Osama bin Laden prior to which the ISI would send back a fax acknowledging receipt.

The return messages stopped short of endorsing drone strikes. But in US eyes the fax response combined with the continued clearing of airspace to avoid midair collisions—a process known as “de-confliction”—represented Pakistan’s tacit consent to the program but after the OBL raid the ISI stopped acknowledgement receipt of the drone notifications.

According to the report, US officials believe that the ISI  chose that option knowing an outright denial of drone permission would spark a confrontation, and also believing that withdrawing consent wouldn’t end the strikes.

Ambiguity over the drone attacks is two-sided as  the US agency general counsels have drawn the line at revealing detailed criteria for picking targets or disclosing who makes the decisions. Leaving these things ambiguous could help shield officials involved against possible court challenges and avoid providing information that militants could use to evade targeting.

Google's Brazil Chief Detained; Court Bans Anti-Islam Video

Sphere: Related Content

The country's Federal Police detained the head of Google Inc.'s Brazilian operations after the company failed to act on an electoral judge's order to remove videos from its YouTube site criticizing a candidate in a rural state election.

Separately, a Brazilian judge ordered Google to remove versions of the "Innocence of the Muslims" video that has sparked deadly riots across the Middle East from Brazilian YouTube within 10 days or face fines. The ruling was in response to a suit brought by a group called the National Union of Islamic Entities, according to court documents.

Google is no stranger to legal challenges to content on its video website. But the twin cases in Brazil may also shine light on the South American nation's sometimes freewheeling legal system, which has garnered more attention as Brazil's role in global business grows.

The head of Chevron Corp.'s Brazil unit was threatened with arrest and his passport confiscated after a small leak at a Chevron well this year, for example.

Legal analysts say neither Google nor any Chevron executives are likely to set foot in jail in the cases. Experts say Brazil's appeals process is long and even officials convicted of major white collar crimes are rarely, if ever, jailed.

But such jail-time threats could eventually damp enthusiasm for Brazil, even as the country seeks to attract the globe's blue chip companies, some analysts said. Google, for example, is building offices in one of Brazil's most expensive buildings in downtown São Paulo.

In the electoral case, Police said Google's Fabio Jose Silva Coelho was taken to a station in São Paulo, where he gave a deposition and promised to appear at future court dates. They said Mr. Coelho would be released since he wasn't accused of a major crime. The authorities were acting on a warrant issued by an electoral judge Tuesday. The charge carries the possibility of a year in jail.

After the warrant was issued, Google said it planned an appeal on the grounds that it is not responsible for the content uploaded by users of YouTube. Google didn't immediately comment further Wednesday.

In the video case, a separate judge said Google will be fined 10,000 Brazilian reais ($4,926) per day if it doesn't comply with his order. Still, the judge acknowledged the complexity of policing videos on YouTube.

The case "creates a clear conflict between freedom of expression and the need to protect individuals and groups against protests that could induce or incite religious discrimination," the judge said in his decision.

"Innocence of the Muslims" is a 14-minute video attacking the Muslim Prophet Muhammad.

RAJA RENT WALEY

Sphere: Related Content

THE temperature in Pakistan's hyper-activist Supreme Court must have reached boiling point after Raja Pervez Ashraf was chosen on June 22 as the candidate of the ruling Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) for prime minister. His predecessor, Yousaf Raza Gilani, was thrown out of the job this week by their Lordships.

The PPP had initially chosen Makhdoom Shahabuddin, an aristocratic former health minister, as the next prime minister, on June 20. But by the following day it had to hurriedly ditch him, after a warrant was issued for his arrest. While he was health minister, the ministry approved the import of a huge quantity of a chemical that can be used to manufacture ecstasy pills and other narcotics.

By Friday, instead of walking into Prime Minister's House, Shahabuddin was in court, seeking pre-arrest bail.

The choice of Ashraf is deeply problematic. He is known to all Pakistan as "Raja Rental", for presiding over deals which involved the government paying cronies to set up temporary or "rental" power plants, to plug the crippling shortfall in electricity supply, while he was energy minister.

The rental plants were often established with ageing equipment, though the government was charged for new gear, and the blackouts only grew. Rental power was deemed a "total failure" according to a Supreme Court judgment on the issue earlier this year, for producing high cost and insufficient electricity.

That verdict found that officials involved, including Ashraf, had "violated the principle of transparency" and must be investigated by the anti-corruption watchdog, the National Accountability Bureau, to see if they were "getting financial benefits" out of the "scam".

But more than the courts, the people of Pakistan will feel aggrieved at the appointment of a man whose ministry oversaw over a national disaster, pursuing questionable schemes while simply watching the problem grow. Ashraf, 61, became known for continually predicting the imminent end of the electricity shortage, only to have to eat his words before unabashedly issuing a new rosy prediction.

In recent days, the relentless summer heat has triggered violent protests across Punjab, the province that houses over half the population, over the electricity shortages, which means that fans and refrigerators don't work. There is misery for households while industry is being shut down.

Some in Pakistan see even darker clouds ahead. The appointment of Ashraf will also not impress the military, which is the ultimate arbiter of Pakistan's political process. The timing of the move on Shahabuddin was seen as highly suspicious, not least by him. The Anti-Narcotics Force, which is headed by an army general, is pursing Shahabuddin.

Conspiracy theorists -- which includes most people here -- think the object is to force early elections or even create such chaos that an excuse will be found to impose an unelected government of technocrats, by the military and courts working together. Elections have to be called by March 2013 anyway.

The legal-political circus is set to continue, so Ashraf's tenure could be very short lived. Gilani was disqualified from office by the Supreme Court for refusing to write a letter to the Swiss authorities to request the re-opening of dormant money-laundering cases against the president, Asif Ali Zardari, who also heads the PPP.

Ashraf is expected by his boss, the president, to resist court orders. As the legal arguments now having already been exhausted with Gilani, the court will probably give Ashraf little time to comply before also dispensing with him.

Then yet another prime minister will be needed. Pakistan can forget about any actual business of government getting done.

MEDIATRIAL OR FAIR TRIAL IN MEDIA?

Sphere: Related Content

 

Condemning the accused

“When your case is weak, take it to the media, instead of the court,” says Thomas Sowell. Laura Alber says, “If O J Simpsom was guilty, the media was responsible for his acquittal.” Both could be true. We are all witnesses to what is shown on the television every day when persons under arrest are brought to the court or are taken back to prison. A host of photographers and videographers gather and do not allow the accused and the police to even move. The suspects under arrest are depicted as if they are already declared guilty. Press freedom is a cherishable fundamental right but it is not absolute. It is subject to restriction and limitations mentioned under Article 19 of the Constitution.

It is time to sit back and ponder over the reasonable trends of the media; whether the media is contributing in holding fair trials or rendering them unfair and may be illegal? The individual who becomes the subject of press or television ‘items’ usually has his or her personality, reputation or career dashed to the ground almost forever, after the media exposures. When, years later, the court proceedings end in a clean acquittal or acquittal for lack of evidence beyond reasonable doubt, the affected person can resurrect his or her lost position. In the above context, few questions arise. Does the media in such cases permit the law to take its own natural course? Is pre-trial condemnation part of the law or fair trial? Can any body say who is guilty or innocent until the courts give their final verdict? The fate of victims and witnesses appears to be no better; the publicity they are subject to makes it impossible for the identity of victims of crimes and protection of witnesses. They are made vulnerable to pressures and intimidation by the offenders.

For the above facts, the subject of trial by media has, therefore, assumed extraordinary importance. There is need to educate journalists and media managers and to make them understand and respect the rights of their victims. They must be told not to intrude with the fundamental right to a fair trial of an accused. They also must understand and respect the boundaries of the freedom of press and at what point they cross those limits. Even the courts come under pressure or sometimes get influenced by media blitz. No one is fit to be who is likely to be influenced except by what he sees or hears in court and by what is judicially appropriate for his deliberations. However, judges are also human.

According to the Indian Supreme Court: “It would be mischievous for a newspaper to conduct an independent investigation of its own for a crime for which a man has been arrested and to publish the result of such investigation while the trial is in progress. A trial by newspapers, when trial by a competent court is going on, must be prevented. Such investigation on part of a newspaper would amount to interference with the courts of justice.” (AIR 1961 SC 633). During the investigation or trial no one is allowed under the constitution and law, consciously or unconsciously, to make a public opinion against any of the parties.

For the same reason, under law and even under the code of conduct, judges are not expected to speak or make unnecessary comments publicly, take such comments seriously and make up their minds. There are consistent grievances from some quarters that nowadays judges speak through words of their mouth instead of their judgments during the midst of proceedings. This is particularly happening in the cases of political nature, wherein, one way or the other, political controversies are also involved. There is a growing view that judges make, prima facie, unnecessary but deliberate comments knowing that they would be aired and published by the media to form public opinion towards a particular direction.

Sometimes, the comments by judges also give impression that undue publicity is being sought which also seriously affects the rights of the parties appearing before the court. It would be pertinent to quote the Code of Conduct for superior judiciary; Article 4 of the Code reads: “Functioning as he does in full view of the public, a judge gets thereby all the publicity that is good for him. He should not seek more. In particular, he should not engage in any public controversy, least of all on a political question, notwithstanding that it involves a question of law.” Last but not least, I may also state that the impact of pre-trial exposure by the media is infringing upon the fundamental rights of those facing criminal trials before the courts such as the rights to ‘life and liberty’ guaranteed under Article 9; fundamental rights of protection of equal treatment, person and reputation under Article 4, and political rights under Article 17 of the Constitution.