Pakistan bows to pressure; says it will ban Jamaat-ud-Dawa

[Awesome]

Pakistan bows to pressure; says it will ban Jamaat-ud-Dawa - Sify.com

Just saw this on TV too, where Gillani was taken on by the journalists present asking if they have any evidence. And Gillani was literally fighting back with the journalists that we have come to the conclusion because the old leaders of LeT are now leaders of Jamaat.

The thing is, LeT wasn't banned. When it was banned it continued its militant activities but prominent members quit and formed the Jamaat providing humanitarian work.

It could be possible that its a front, but without taking the matter to court, the Pakistani leadership is making a mockery out of the judicial system. I sense another U-Turn when the public pressure rises.

 

[donrahul]

There you go.. Now you know what a funny icon can do

 

[Awesome]

The Hindu News Update Service

China earlier blocked moves to ban JuD

New York (PTI): Three attempts to proscribe Jamaat-ud-Dawah, the frontal organisation of the Pakistan-based terror outfit LeT, in the UN Security Council were blocked by China, and now all eyes would be on what Beijing does on the fresh move to ban the outfit.

The sanctions committee of the Council had circulated a note to its members that the United States, backed by Britain and France, had tried to add JuD chief Hafiz Mohammed Saeed to the list of individuals and organisations connected to terrorism last May, but was blocked by China, according to a note circulated in the UNSC on Wednesday.

A similar attempt directed against the organisation in April 2006 was also blocked by China, the note said.

Now India has put in a formal request for declaring JuD as a terrorist outfit for its involvement in the Mumbai terror attacks. New Delhi has also asked for freezing of assets of the organisation.

I feel they should get a trial, if the courts says ban em, then we should ban them otherwise do not.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I have no problem with the JuD, or any other organization, being banned, provided, as Asim said, a proper process of establishing its links with terrorism is pursued through the courts.

I imagine however that were the UNSC to issue such a determination, that the GoP would be bound to implement it, regardless of whether guilt is established in Pakistani courts.

So the question is, how does the UNSC rule on such an issue?

Is evidence presented to all the members, and cases made for or against the proposal, guilt or innocence established?

Or, is it all hush hush and 'like minded' countries vote on the issue a particular way?

The fairness and transparency of the UN process is important, because otherwise it will seem like the US and India merely bulldozed what they wanted through the UN.

 

[Goodperson]

I have no problem with the JuD, or any other organization, being banned, provided, as Asim said, a proper process of establishing its links with terrorism is pursued through the courts.

I imagine however that were the UNSC to issue such a determination, that the GoP would be bound to implement it, regardless of whether guilt is established in Pakistani courts.

So the question is, how does the UNSC rule on such an issue?

Is evidence presented to all the members, and cases made for or against the proposal, guilt or innocence established?

Or, is it all hush hush and 'like minded' countries vote on the issue a particular way?

The fairness and transparency of the UN process is important, because otherwise it will seem like the US and India merely bulldozed what they wanted through the UN.

Nope China vetoed Ban on JeM thrice in UN lets see their stance this time with Solid evidence from US and India.

 

[Awesome]

Which is why Pak should try these guys in Pak courts first. If they are found not guilty, use China to veto any such move as China has done so in the past. If found guilty, support it.

But it looks like these guys are just going to go "Ji Hazoor"

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Nope China vetoed Ban on JeM thrice in UN lets see their stance this time with Solid evidence from US and India.

What are you saying 'nope' too?

Following the rule of law and proper process?

I think all of us have stated the same, as long as evidence is present, and it satisfies all parties, an organization can be banned.

Jamaat ud Dawa will be banned, if evidences against it found​

Updated at: 1215 PST, Wednesday, December 10, 2008
ISLAMABAD: Pakistan security Advisor, Mahmood Ali Durrani has said that if evidences were found against Jamaat ud Dawa for its being involved in Mumbai attacks, then it would be banned.

According to Geo News, he further said that besides this, if any evidence was found against any organization during the investigations, then the same would also be banned.
Jamaat ud Dawa will be banned, if evidences against it found

 

[Patriot]

Which is why Pak should try these guys in Pak courts first. If they are found not guilty, use China to veto any such move as China has done so in the past. If found guilty, support it.

But it looks like these guys are just going to go "Ji Hazoor"

Thanks god we have a good ally like China..These indians are arrogant..Innocent until Proven Guilty ..

 

[Dhruv]

Or, is it all hush hush and 'like minded' countries vote on the issue a particular way?

Bordering on the lines pursued by most people who think there is a conspiracy against Islam, Agnostic, I think one needs to hold to a rather pragmatic view of these things.

It is difficult to form a firm opinion in such democracies within themselves (forming a cohesive international is a very uphill task), and there must be hundreds of issues where these countries differ within themselves and pry aiming at each other at different times.

It's easy to dismiss it saying, "like mindedness" ganging together and pursuing something that may not even exist - but unlike a single big attack as 9/11 which needlessly led to Iraq, this is a different story.

It has been a matter since some time now, and I firmly believe that in things like these - you and me would never get to know the REAL details - why certain countries want some organizations banned in Pakistan, but pragmatically, the length of the period (China blocked move to ban Jamaat thrice-USA-World-The Times of India) this is pursued for, and the fact there are multiple countries backing it, I paint it as very nearly TRUE.

These organizations are hurting people, and hurting these countries and in the most uncivilized way, and they need to be dealt with very determinedly.

And in the situation Pakistan is these days, holding a nation together with it's populace requires them to not have media and mainstream vocalists (including government officials) raging the heat further partaking views along the ones you mention - doubting the intentions of these organizations - because there is that vulnerable common man who is more likely to believe it to be true, and more likely to turn it even worse for Pakistan when the government essentially would have to do something against these outfits.

 

[Dhruv]

I think all of us have stated the same, as long as evidence is present, and it satisfies all parties, an organization can be banned.

This would be true in a neutral place like a high court. What I have gathered over time is that when you essentially present an evidence to somebody who may have been directly or indirectly involved in the crime itself, then denying an evidence is not that difficult. Weaving alternative theories is a way to go.

In a perfectly neutral, humane system, if such plight is put forwards by multiple countries - then the system should reach out to take clues of evidence and lead towards a solution, and not debate feverishly if it is true or not.

I do not believe in many Indian efforts, as they are muddled and may not always be true - but here just the fact that it is an international initiative, and by some countries which (let's face it) may not care even 2 hoots if Pakistan exists on the face of the earth or no - coming together and moving to UNSC - half the job is done. Another half would be by some evidence.

100% backing on evidence - taken just at the face value may not lead us too far because first it is not easy to get such promising evidences all the time, and then it is easy to build alternative theories to refute its credibility.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Hey, Guys! Some potentially "innocent" posters get banned here at the PDF all the time, without trial! The PDF should have a trial system for banning members. Right?

(mods, please don't ban me because of this post)

 

[ngold]

Which is why Pak should try these guys in Pak courts first. If they are found not guilty, use China to veto any such move as China has done so in the past. If found guilty, support it.

But it looks like these guys are just going to go "Ji Hazoor"

AA Question is that whether China will veto it or not.. No speculation on Chinese part as they also facing some sort of terrorism nd China will not want to be seen as irresponsible country.. We need to think how far can Pakistan stretch this friendship band...

 

[Goodperson]

What are you saying 'nope' too?

Following the rule of law and proper process?

I think all of us have stated the same, as long as evidence is present, and it satisfies all parties, an organization can be banned.

Lets see China's stance this time otherwise the its never ending terrorist story.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Bordering on the lines pursued by most people who think there is a conspiracy against Islam, Agnostic, I think one needs to hold to a rather pragmatic view of these things.

Not at all alluding to a 'conspiracy against Islam' - it was an honest comment on the role the interests of states and real politik play in the global community, and in the UN.

Secondly, the way the WoT is looked at needs to be reanalyzed. It will never be won by purely military means, and addressing the ideological aspect of the conflict requires the actions of those combating terrorism to be backed by moral and legal certitude, otherwise the actions end up contributing to the cause of extremists by allowing them to hold aloft more shining examples of 'injustice and persecution'.

Hence the insistence that the process should be transparent, and if in Pakistan, the process should be handled through the courts. Pakistan has already indicated that it will oblige with what the UNSC requires, that is not an issue. At issue is whether the process in the UNSC will be transparent enough for us to claim the moral high ground.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

This would be true in a neutral place like a high court. What I have gathered over time is that when you essentially present an evidence to somebody who may have been directly or indirectly involved in the crime itself, then denying an evidence is not that difficult. Weaving alternative theories is a way to go.

In a perfectly neutral, humane system, if such plight is put forwards by multiple countries - then the system should reach out to take clues of evidence and lead towards a solution, and not debate feverishly if it is true or not.

I do not believe in many Indian efforts, as they are muddled and may not always be true - but here just the fact that it is an international initiative, and by some countries which (let's face it) may not care even 2 hoots if Pakistan exists on the face of the earth or no - coming together and moving to UNSC - half the job is done. Another half would be by some evidence.

100% backing on evidence - taken just at the face value may not lead us too far because first it is not easy to get such promising evidences all the time, and then it is easy to build alternative theories to refute its credibility.

Are your suggesting in your first sentence that Pakistan does not have a high court?

If multiple countries are cooperating and sharing intelligence and evidence (per Ambassador Haqqani the US already is with Pakistan), then there should be nothing to prevent them from using the avenues available (The Pakistani justice system, all the way to the Supreme Court) to continue cooperating and make their case against the perpetrators to get them behind bars.

The UNSC can indeed ban organizations, and Pakistan has indicated it will act, but it cannot make Pakistan extradite any individuals, nor am I aware of what action it requires of member countries, other than restrictions, against people designated as 'terrorist'.

The perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks are not going to the gallows because the UNSC declares them terrorists - they will meet that fate only when condemned by a court of law, and for that cooperation on investigations, evidence and intelligence is crucial.