1) I do not know why, nor can I see a specific reason, why the white truck took off like it did from the initial traffic stop, at the 8:15 mark.
2) The roadblock was sited on a curve, whether by design or incompetence, obscured by the snowbanks. It appears that the white truck did not see the roadblock until too late, and took action to swerve into the snowbank to avoid it. Whether they were trying to get around it, or simply avoid a crash, I do not know from the video.
3) At the 9:16 mark, as the truck crashes into the snowbank to the left, an officer steps out of the roadblock into the path of the truck, into the snow. I do not know what he was thinking – perhaps he thought that the truck was going around the roadblock. It appears that he fired two or three rounds (from statements and from seeing the impacts on the windshield as the helicopter circles). Of course, it is authorized to fire at a vehicle that is being used as a weapon against you – but it is debatable if by deliberately putting yourself into the path of that vehicle the same logic applies. My assessment is that the truck is deliberately trying to not hit both the roadblock and the officer on foot. Either way, this will be used by LE to justify the initial shoot into the windshield. The officer narrowly avoids being run over, and you can see him scoot off to the side and then make his way back to the roadblock vehicle.
4) In all the discussion about the actions of Finicum as he exited the vehicle, has anyone considered that 1) He has already been fired upon as he crashed the vehicle into the snowbank and 2) could he have in fact been injured in some way by one of those shots?
5) The next thing that happens is the killing of Finicum. My video is not that clear and I cannot see some of things that others have reported. It appears to me that he is shot by the officer on the right, who is advancing from the roadblock with a handgun presented. Finicum initially has his hands up, he is in the snow, he looks confused, his hands drop and then he is not sure what to do with them. It has been speculated that he may have been going for a handgun that may or may have not been there. He may have been grabbing at where he was shot. We have no audio and no real clear video – we do not know what small arms fire was present or verbal orders were being given at this time. He was trying to surrender after crashing and rounds impacting his windshield. If the cops were shooting at him after he tried to surrender, it makes sense that he would either grab the wound, or perhaps grab for a gun that was or was not there – given that he saw the elephant at that point, and knew what they were going to do / were doing i.e. killing him.
6) The officer who appears from the left appears to have a taser, in the left hand. It seems to be the taser that puts Finicum down, because he is still standing from receiving handgun rounds. Once he is put down, he is clearly wounded, and no attempt is made to further either assist or restrain him – he is bleeding out at that point. I see a red laser on his head at various points but I do not know if he was fired at again after he was put down. It does however appear that if he was shot before he was tasered, he had his hands up and basically was given no quarter. The only justification for the shoot from the LEO perspective would probably be (in a situation they created), as a continuation of the initial near miss on the officer in the snow, and as a result of Finicum’s action to exit the vehicle, which is not usually tolerated at ‘normal’ traffic stops.
7) At 9:49 Finicum is down and dying and we switch our focus to the vehicle as the helicopter circles. I would like to take more time and focus on the actions of all the LEOs at the roadblock, something I have not had time to do so far, having only played this several times, the focus being on the action at the white truck. That would be a worthwhile Intel effort. Anyway, as the helicopter circles, and is obscured at times by trees, we see non-lethal ‘flashbangs’ impacting on and near to the vehicle. It is hard to tell if any lethal rounds are fired initially, as the vehicle sits there. These flashbangs, as designed, would have been terrifying to an inexperienced person such as Victoria, huddled low in the vehicle. There is what looks like snow kicked up in the area of the passenger side window, either from non-lethal or lethal rounds. When I first watched this on my phone, it looked like rounds impacting the side window. It may also be non-lethal kicking up snow.
8) At 10:22 I am not sure what is impacting the passenger side of the vehicle, whether non-lethal, shotgun or rifle rounds. If it is bangers, there is no accompanying flash at this time. At 10:47 there are more of these impacts, which look to me like the vehicle is being stuck by rounds (lethal or non-lethal), not kicked up snow. Whatever is being used, are they trying to suppress and dominate the passengers remaining in the vehicle, who are huddled on the floorboards at this time, as per their statements?
9) At 11:30 you have a group of officers moving out to the back of the vehicle to cover its left side. Bear that in mind as the helicopter circles.
10) At 12:13, through the gap in the tress, you see what look like multiple impacts onto the window of the camper shell of the truck. Is this hitting at an angle from the guys to the rear left of the truck? Go to point 13 for a revision on this – it may well be tree shadow instead. At 12:20 you see impacts on, through or inside the windshield, which I initially thought may be a result of through-and-through rounds coming through the camper shell, through the cab, and out the windshield. On further viewing (coming back from point 13), I think the ‘impacts’ on the camper shell window are shadow, and what can be seen on/inside the windshield may well be non-lethal gas clouds being shot into the cab through the side windows, and impacting inside. I would also consider that some of these impacts could be from non-lethal rounds, such as pepper / CS rounds, which Victoria says were used (she said gas was used). At 13:20 there is a red dot playing on the left side of the truck, and then what look like white impacts into the driver side window, on the console. Is this SAF, or perhaps gas/pepper rounds? Have these side windows been shot out?
11) At 13:42 you see the red laser playing on Finicum’s head.
12) At 14:08 we are now back around with the helicopter and you see what looks like shattered safety glass in the passenger window which was not like that on the first pass around. Shot out? At around 15:00 the agents are milling around behind their vehicle, with individuals popping out to either take shots or at least aim their rifles at the truck. Are they now giving orders to the occupants to surrender and exit the vehicle? 15:06 the left side truck door appears to be open. Someone gets out with hands raised and tosses something to the ground, probably a handgun. There is a red laser playing around on him. From this point onward, the occupants are getting out and being taken into custody.
13) 15:43: OK, go back and see point 10: I see the same effect on the left window of the camper shell. I don’t see why there would be any shooting at this time – on further inspection, it may be a play of the shadow of the trees on the window? There is however smoke drifting at 16:00 – CS gas?
To conclude: there are some things that can obviously be seen in the video, and much that cannot, or is open to speculation. More information is required. I do not see this video discounting Victoria’s statement, if you take into account her likely altered perception. The truck and the occupants were subject to a large amount of chaos and violence. I do not know to what extent small arms fire was directed at the truck once it had come to rest in the snow. I simply cannot see. I can see a number of flashbangs and other impacts, some of which may be lethal, or non-lethal, and there appears to have been some sort of ‘gas’ used on the interior of the vehicle. To the occupants, including Victoria, this would have appeared noisy, violent and terrifying.
I cannot see any justification for Finicums death. I will reiterate that none of this needed to happen, at the macro level. You can say that this was bad decision making, in your perfect Constitutional make-believe world, or you can say it was great decision making, from the point of view of power and tyranny asserting itself. On the micro level, if professionals with judgement were conducting the ‘ambush,’ Finicum did not need to die. But what happened was par for the course in the way law enforcement operates in this country. The situation was created and it went down accordingly. Basically, Finicum tried to run over an officer, he got out of the vehicle, he made furtive movements, he failed to obey lawful orders instantly, therefore he was killed. That’s how they roll.
#1
At no time did the cowboy have a weapon in either hand. While at the same time there were many weapons trained on him. That is because he would never shot a fellow American. The same reason he hit the ditch. He avoided impacting the road block.
If you know how a patriot thinks, you know what happened.
The tyrant in the Whitehouse is gleeful. He has paid assassins who don't think like Americans. They are murderers for the Chicago Mob.
Period.
Posted by: Ho Chi Crinens5363 ||
01/30/2016 1:21 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Secondly, the assasins knew he was not going to surrender. Therefore when they set the ambush they were ready to kill him. He left the vehicle immediately so that if they decided to cut him down, the passengers would be out of the line of fire.
Posted by: Ho Chi Crinens5363 ||
01/30/2016 1:26 Comments ||
Top||
"When Paleface racks automatic thunder-stick, time to talk peace."
The individuals in the white truck needed to surrender peacefully, and the opportunity to do so came at the initial stop. Whatever your grievance is with the government, you can't pursue it if you're dead. Surrender, go into custody and put your lawyer to work.
Once the white truck bolts the initial stop the die is cast. However one criticizes the location of the roadblock or the initial behavior of the officers there, once the white truck attempts to evade / crash into officers, no one in that truck is going to live.
That's just the way it is.
I'm not going to get into the mindset of Finicum and his pals -- I don't have that much time, and I'm comfortably certain their grievances aren't worth dying over. I'm not all that happy with the present federal administration (nor the last one) but I'm not out there taking over federal buildings and making an ass of myself, either.
When Paleface officers tell you to drop the rod and get yer mitts in da air, that's what you'd better do.
Posted by: Steve White ||
01/30/2016 11:18 Comments ||
Top||
#7
I get pissed off at all the arm chair self rightious surrender monkeys. Americans are under attack as individuals, their means of income being stripped of them by any means possible by hostile agencies of this government. And the usual response by blow hard internet pale faces is bend over and take it.
FOAD
Posted by: Unelet Protector of the Sith2424 ||
01/30/2016 12:39 Comments ||
Top||
I am not a video engineer, nor can I reliably analyze video footage. When the incident in Oregon involving the shooting death of LaVoy Finicum at the hands of Oregon state police took place last Wednesday evening, I only had an eyewitness account, and that account was that Finicum had two chances of surviving the encounter with the police and he messed both up.
I am not going to give my opinion of the incident because I have given it elsewhere at Rantburg and on my Facebook page.
Finicum didn't deserve the application of the death penalty.
What took place was was a blatant reminder of just how out of control the federal judiciary is, and especially in Oregon. The political masters of the US Attorney in Portland took a relatively minor fracus in the hinterlands of Oregon, inflated its importance by slapping a conspiracy label on it, thus making whatever was said on social media, and whatever was done a felony, armed police to the teeth and laid in wait for the Malhuer occupiers.
With predictable results.
The fact that every last Patriot and soul were not gunned down in cold blood is more a testament to the restaint of the police and their site commanders than to the federal judiciary, who set the events in motion that led to the death of Finicum.
In the final analysis, the shooting by police appears to be legal, but was just a few notches less than justified, and so the involvement of the police ended there in the cold, snowy forests of Oregon. "Just following orders" and so, a man is dead.
That Wednesday night when I went to the Facebook page of LaVoy Finicum, a number of others had already posted their opinion. Around 25 percent expressed their joy that a man was killed, and not just any man, a white, Christian man was gunned down.
I am not talking just about simple trolls. I have been writing quite a bit for Rantburg and for myself, and I can detect through language whether another writer is expressing an opinion to get a rise out of readers, or expecting a rise out of readers and expressing joy at a shooting death.
What I read was joy, unbridled and unabashed joy that a man was shot to death by the police. You have to wonder why any man would post such vile sentiments, but fortunately for us, they did let us all know why. He was white, Christian, rich and armed with a gun. Finicum had it coming, they said.
As I expressed to a retired USMC gunnery sergeant acquaintance Thursday night, those who said those awful sentiments are our domestic enemies. They do not want our guns, or our money, or anything else. They want, nothing more and nothing less, than our very lives, and if the police and American security forces can be moved to gun down their political enemies under the color of law, then it is all to the best.
The shooting in Oregon was about Thomas Jefferson's Tree of Liberty, which "must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." LaVoy Finicum's blood was used for that purpose. Can his political enemies who cheered his demise expect nothing less than to follow him into that good night?
Loads.
Rantburg's summary for arms and ammunition:
Prices for pistol ammunition and for rifle ammunition were steady across the board.
Prices for used pistols were mixed, while prices for used rifles were lower across the board.
New Lows:
None
Pistol Ammunition
.45 Caliber, 230 Grain, From Last Week: Unchanged (8 Weeks)
Cheapest, 50 rounds: Quality Made Cartridges, Store Brand, FMJ, Brass, Reloads, .25 per round
Cheapest Bulk, 500 rounds: Quality Made Cartridges, Store Brand, FMJ, Brass, Reloads, .25 per round (From Last week: Unchanged (5 Weeks))
.40 Caliber Smith & Wesson, 180 Grain, From Last Week: Unchanged (2 Weeks)
Cheapest, 50 rounds: Bud's Gun Shop, Tulammo, FMJ, Steel cased, .23 per round
Cheapest Bulk, 1,000 rounds: Freedom Ammunition, Store brand, FMJFP, Brass, Reloads, .22 per round (From Last Week: Unchanged (3 Weeks))
9mm Parabellum, 115 Grain, From Last Week: Unchanged (5 Weeks)
Cheapest, 50 rounds: Selway Armory, Tulammo, FMJ, Steel Cased, .18 per round
Cheapest Bulk, 1,000 rounds: Ammunition to Go, Tulammo, FMJ, Steel Cased, .17 per round (From Last Week: Unchanged (3 Weeks))
.357 Magnum, 158 Grain, From Last Week: Unchanged (4 Weeks)
Cheapest, 50 rounds: LAX Ammunition, Tulammo, FMJ, Steel cased, .28 per round
Cheapest Bulk: 1,000 rounds: J&G Sales, Tulammo, FMJ, Steel cased, .25 per round (From Last Week: Unchanged (4Q, 2015))
Rifle Ammunition
.223 Caliber/5.56mm 55 Grain, From Last Week: Unchanged (2 Weeks)
Cheapest, 20 rounds: Goose Island Sales, Tulammo, steel cased, FMJ, .23 per round
Cheapest Bulk, 1,000 rounds: Cheaper Than Dirt!, Tulammo, steel cased, FMJ, .22 per round (From Last Week: -.02 Each)
.308 NATO 150 Grain, From Last Week: Unchanged (8 Weeks)
Cheapest, 20 rounds: Ammunition Supply Company, Tulammo, steel cased, FMJ, .37 per round
Cheapest Bulk, 500 rounds: Vizards Guns and Ammo, Tulammo, steel cased, FMJ, .40 per round (From Last Week: Unchanged (2 Weeks))
7.62x39 AK 123 Grain, From Last Week: Unchanged (2 Weeks)
Cheapest, 20 rounds: Munire USA, Wolf WPA, steel case, FMJ, .25 per round
Cheapest Bulk, 1,000 rounds: TrueCaliber.com, Wolf WPA, steel case, .23 per round (From Last Week: Unchanged (9 Weeks))
.22 LR 40 Grain, From Last Week: Unchanged (4Q, 2015)
Cheapest, 20 rounds: Ammomen, Federal, RNL .08 per round
Cheapest Bulk, 500 rounds: Munire USA, Aguila, RNL, .08 per round (From Last Week: +.01 Each))
Guns for Private Sale
Rifles
.223/5.56mm (AR Pattern Semiautomatic) Average Price: $580 Last Week Avg: $598 (-) ($616 (42 Weeks), $476 (18 Weeks))
California (182, 182): Smith & Wesson M&P: $600 ($650 (1Q,2015), $400 (21 Weeks))
Texas (226, 228): Smith & Wesson M&P: $575 ($700 (47 Weeks), $350 (42 Weeks))
Pennsylvania (96, 93): Ruger AR-556: $600 ($700 (41 Weeks), $300 (29 Weeks))
Virginia (120, 125): Smith & Wesson M&P 15 Sport: $625 ($750 (47 Weeks), $480 (7 Weeks))
Florida (301, 298): Smith & Wesson Model M&P15 Sport: $500 ($650 (31 Weeks), $380 (43 Weeks))
#1
Finicum didn't deserve the application of the death penalty.
Sounds very simmilar to what some were saying about Tamir Rice. Both tragic I spose but when someone reaches for their piece all expectations of de-escalation have been discarded - by the decedent. And don't forget Finicum was on record saying he was willing to die for his cause. Life ain't no fucking action movie where the marshall plucks the roscoe out of the bad guys hand. It's called deadly force for a reason.
#2
In the final analysis, the shooting by police appears to be legal, but was just a few notches less than justified, and so the involvement of the police ended there in the cold, snowy forests of Oregon. "Just following orders" and so, a man is dead.
[DAWN] ALTHOUGH as the point man of a government currently braving a terror campaign, Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan ...Currently the Interior Minister of Pakistain. He is the senior leader of the Pak Moslem League (N) and a close aide to Nawaz Uncle Fester Sharif. He is noted for his vocal anti-American railing in the National Assembly. However (comma) Khan told the U.S. ambassador that he was in fact pro-American but he and the PML-N would have to be critical of US actions in order to remain publicly credible. Khan cited his wife and children's US citizenship as proof, which means he's lying to one side or the other and probably both. He wears a wig, but you probably guessed that. since hair doesn't grow naturally in that shape or texture... should provide regular updates to raise the public morale, he doesn't speak very often. But on the occasion he does, he invariably creates waves.
Who wouldn't recall his lament in parliament when Pakistain's enemy number one, the mass murderer Hakeemullah Mehsud, was taken out by a missile fired from a US drone? Nisar Ali Khan was so outraged that the floor of the house shook with his anger because the man he was so keen to negotiate with was no more.
If someone else matched the interior minister's sense of outrage at Mehsud's killing it was the Pakistain Tehrik-e-Insaf ...a political party in Pakistan. PTI was founded by former Pakistani cricket captain and philanthropist Imran Khan. The party's slogan is Justice, Humanity and Self Esteem, each of which is open to widely divergent interpretations.... chief Imran Khan ... aka Taliban Khan, who is the lightweight's lightweight... , who also wanted to talk to the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistain, and the drone strike took away his favourite interlocutor.
With Hakeemullah gone and Nisar Ali Khan having had to face the brunt of Imran Khan's dharna as interior minister, one would have thought the two Aitchisonians would never see eye to eye again. But one couldn't have been more gravely mistaken.
For long, Imran Khan has used the derisory term 'muk muka' to describe the Charter of Democracy concluded between the PML-N and the PPP in which the two parties pledged not to repeat their nasty politics of persecuting the other when either was in power in the 1990s.
On Thursday, just two days ago, when the interior minister came under renewed attack for being apparently AWOL during a crisis period, he addressed a news conference and, instead of updating the audience about the latest measures in the context of the National Action Plan to counter terrorism, he laid into the opposition PPP.
Mr Khan lashed out at the leader of the opposition Syed Khursheed Shah after the latter echoed calls of some of the family members of those killed in the Army Public School and more recently the Charsadda terror atrocities in calling for a judicial inquiry to ascertain possible gaps in security measures.
Rather than find fault with Shah's demand, Nisar Ali Khan said he was in a position to 'confirm' Imran Khan's charge of 'muk muka' between his own party and the PPP, and accused the opposition leader of securing undue favours from the prime minister. He did not specify what these favours were but accused the opposition of undermining the action against terrorism.
Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan's latest comments were reminiscent of his remarks when the PPP protested against the manner of arrest and apparent persecution of a key leader, Dr Asim Hussain by the federally controlled paramilitary Rangers in Sindh.
Rather than ask the force under his command to present evidence in the anti-terrorism court against Dr Hussain to secure his conviction, the minister had launched into a tirade against his critics and said he could present 'tapes' against the detained PPP leader which were full of embarrassing, incriminating material. For weeks, even months, we have waited to hear those juicy conversations.
I recall Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan from when he served in the Nawaz Sharif ... served two non-consecutive terms as prime minister, heads the Pakistain Moslem League (Nawaz). Noted for his spectacular corruption, the 1998 Pak nuclear test, border war with India, and for being tossed by General Musharraf... cabinet in the 1990s as a pleasant, civil and an amiable person. He was on top of his ministry. Despite the fact he enjoyed unrivalled proximity to the Sharifs, he had no arrogance.
One can only speculate but, it seems, two things have happened since, making him bitter and averse to criticism. The first which left him perhaps filled with guilt, even self-loathing, seemed to be his role in the appointment of the then army chief, Gen Pervez Perv Musharraf ... former dictator of Pakistain, who was less dictatorial and corrupt than any Pak civilian government to date ... in 1998.
Nisar Ali Khan's brother, Lt-Gen Iftikhar Ali Khan who'd been appointed defence secretary by Sharif, was Musharraf's senior and the commando had served under him. When after Gen Jahangir Karamat's resignation, the prime minister was confronted with making a choice, the brothers are said to have proposed Musharraf's name forcefully. The rest is history.
Nisar Ali Khan has always been a religious man but his years in political wilderness following Musharraf's coup seemed to have pushed him further towards the right. Much of this information comes from sources in the PML-N and is admittedly speculative.
Therefore, it isn't clear whether his deep-seated dislike for the PPP stems more from the allegations of corruption against the largely Sindh-based party or the avowedly secular nature of the politics it pursues.
One can believe any criticism levelled against the PPP over issues ranging from misgovernance to corruption but it is difficult to fathom that a party that has been at the receiving end of the wrath of the turbans would harbour a soft corner for them or would want to undermine the war on terrorism.
Posted by: Fred ||
01/30/2016 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
[DAWN] INTERIOR Minister Nisar Ali Khan appears to have a notoriously thin skin. It was recently on display when Leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly Khursheed Shah did what he seems to do best -- provoke the interior minister.
Earlier in the week, Mr Shah castigated the interior minister for his alleged unavailability in parliament and inaction over many parts of the National Action Plan.
As soon as the interior minister rediscovered his health -- his indisposition was perhaps the reason why he kept away from the public gaze after criticism of his ministry -- he has seen it fit to assail Mr Shah.
It has been a thoroughly dubious attack. The recent carnage at Bacha Khan University in Charsadda was not an isolated incident as the interior minister has suggested, nor is there an obvious reason to deny an independent investigation into the circumstances that allowed the attack to take place.
Sadly, the interior minister's belligerence is not new. At the height of the PTI protest on Constitution Avenue, Chaudhry Nisar turned his guns on veteran PPP senator Aitzaz Ahsan.
At that particular moment, the PML-N needed every bit of democratic support that it could muster in parliament. Instead, bizarrely, the interior minister turned the special joint session of parliament called to reinforce support for democracy into a slanging match with Mr Ahsan.
For some reason -- blame it on Nawaz Sharif ... served two non-consecutive terms as prime minister, heads the Pakistain Moslem League (Nawaz). Noted for his spectacular corruption, the 1998 Pak nuclear test, border war with India, and for being tossed by General Musharraf... who even now seems unwilling to rein in his interior minister or the latter politician himself who came across as de facto deputy prime minister, unwilling to accept a role equal to the rest of the cabinet -- Chaudhry Nisar was allowed to undermine the entire joint session of parliament.
It was a ghastly performance in September 2014 but unfortunately, he does not appear to have learned any lessons.
Undeniably, there have been many faults in Chaudhry Nisar's parliamentary career. However, a person who gets all wrapped up in himself makes a mighty small package... the role of Khursheed Shah as leader of the opposition is not altogether commendable either.
Mr Shah has proved himself in parliament as an orator and a combatant, but what of the timing of each of his speeches? Ultimately, it appears that whatever the legitimacy of his complaints, there is a link to the pressure on the PPP -- or elements close to the PPP leadership -- in Sindh.
The ongoing incarceration of Dr Asim Hussain appears to have inordinately drawn the attention of the PPP. In fact, be it Dr Hussain or others accused of crimes connected to the very apex of the PPP leadership in parliament, the party only appears to become active when it finds itself under attack, either in Sindh or at the centre.
The interior minister was wrong to respond in the manner he did and Mr Shah was wrong to attack.
Regrettably, it appears that the only thing the parliamentary leadership is interested in is scoring political points.
Posted by: Fred ||
01/30/2016 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
[DAWN] LAWS, like men, can be good or bad. Nonetheless, we prefer the 'rule of law' to the 'rule of men' because the former lends certainty and predictability to the governance of one's affairs. The latter subjects one to the vagaries and whimsies of individuals.
Last August, the Supreme Court (SC) held that Pak law forbids hunting of houbara bustards. A three-member bench observed "we are told that foreign dignitaries who hunt the houbara bustard bring money and spread their largesse in establishing schools, mosques, dispensaries etcetera... The laws of Pakistain ... are not saleable commodities and in contending as much the governments debase, degrade and demean the citizens. If we do not ... respect our own laws, can we expect foreigners to do so?" This January, a five-member bench reviewed the earlier judgement and declared that "[e]xamination of the laws clearly shows that permanent ban on hunting of houbara bustard is not envisaged."
Last September, a three-member SC bench unanimously held that Barrister Ali Zafar had committed contempt of court and barred him from practising law for one year. Exactly a month later, a five-member bench allowed Zafar's review application and restored his licence.
Earlier, in 2013, the majority of a five-member SC bench in the judges' pensions case gave exhaustive reasons why retired judges who had received excess pensionary benefits on account of an earlier misinterpretation of the law should not be compelled to return the benefits already received. Three months later, the majority of a seven-member review bench indicated such benefits were indeed liable to return and ordered the matter to be reheard.
World over, courts do change -- over time -- their interpretation of law. That is how jurisprudence evolves. But the willingness and alacrity with which our SC changes its mind is perhaps unique. Are Pak SC judges more open to admitting mistakes than their foreign counterparts? Or do they make more mistakes in the first place?
Before delving into these questions, three points should be noted.
Firstly, that the SC is the apex judicial authority in Pakistain. What it says not only finally and conclusively decides the dispute between the parties but declares the law for all courts, government functionaries and citizens in future. As such, it is imperative that -- for there to be any certainty and predictability in law, for litigation to ever end, for governments and citizens to know what is permitted and what is not -- when the SC makes up its mind, it should stay made up. In the oft-cited words of US Supreme Court judge Robert Jackson, "[w]e are not final because we are infallible, but we are only infallible because we are final."
Secondly, to maintain its own finality, the SC has long restricted its review jurisdiction to correcting glaring errors of fact or law floating on the surface of the earlier decision ie where a crucial fact or legal provision was not brought to the court's attention. Just because a later bench disagrees with the analysis of facts or interpretation of law in the original decision is not grounds to reverse it. Of course, the SC can -- in subsequent cases -- revisit legal principles enunciated in earlier decisions and improve, refine or even depart from them as part of the process of jurisprudential evolution. But such evolution usually takes place over decades, not days.
Thirdly, as a procedural safeguard for the preservation of the above two principles, the SC rules require that an application for review be placed, as far as possible, before the judges who made the original decision.
In all three of the above cases, a larger bench was constituted by the then chief justice of Pakistain during the course of review proceedings. The original set of judges hearing the cases were left in minority. The new judges (now forming a majority) promptly proceeded to set aside the original decision. Being out-numbered, the original judges could only record their indignant dissent -- both with the constitution of a larger review bench and the eventual decision to set aside the original finding.
At least two of the review judgements were, in this writer's opinion, better reasoned than the original ones. That is, however, irrelevant. Crucially, the reviewing benches were unable to point out any specific facts or statutory provisions that were overlooked by the original benches. Their decision to reverse was, ultimately, founded in their conviction that the original benches had gotten it wrong. But this liberal approach towards review has very adverse consequences.
Firstly, the fiction that every SC decision is a decision of the court itself -- rather than the individualised inclinations of a particular bench -- is laid asunder. A message is sent to all governments and litigants that SC decisions and enunciations of law are not final per se -- but only final till the arrival of a more propitious time and a review bench with more amenable judges.
Secondly, and far more damagingly to the SC's reputation, the swiftness and ease of the reversals creates an impression, rightly or wrongly, that either the benches passing the original decision were manned with judges ideologically inclined towards a particular outcome (thus requiring immediate correction) or that the larger benches in review were so constituted.
In the post-2009 era, the then CJP was often accused of imprinting his ideological inclinations upon the court's jurisprudence through his power to constitute benches and assign cases. If the present SC wishes to permanently dispel that impression, then exclusive discretion should be replaced with a system where benches are constituted and cases allocated through random selection within rigidly defined parameters. Any applications for larger benches should be decided solely by the bench before whom they are presented.
Secondly, to reduce frequent reviews, SC benches should be made larger. Benches with fewer judges err more readily. Larger benches are more likely to cover all angles of a case. They are also harder to influence -- even by dominant personalities within the bench itself. Sure, this might mean fewer benches and slower decisions at the apex level -- but at least what is decided shall stay decided. A more consistent exposition of the law by the SC would make the work of lower courts easier and faster. Litigation overall would be reduced.
Viewed thus, the recent Senate bill to increase the number of SC judges from 17 to 26 may well have an effect opposite to what is intended. More judges means more benches and faster decisions but at the cost of increasing fractures and contradictory judgements within the SC. The law shall become less certain and both the pace and quality of decision-making in lower courts (where most litigation starts and ends) shall be adversely affected.
Posted by: Fred ||
01/30/2016 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Currently the Interior Minister of Pakistain. He is the senior leader of the Pak Moslem League (N) and a close aide to Nawaz 
Pervez 
[DAWN] LAWS, like men, can be good or bad. Nonetheless, we prefer the 'rule of law' to the 'rule of men' because the former lends certainty and predictability to the governance of one's affairs. The latter subjects one to the vagaries and whimsies of individuals.
