Sayed Pervez Kambaksh, the student journalist sentenced to death for blasphemy in Afghanistan, has been told he will spend the next 20 years in jail after the country’s highest court ruled against him – without even hearing his defence.
The 23-year-old, brought to worldwide attention after an Independent campaign, was praying that Afghanistan’s top judges would quash his conviction for lack of evidence, or because he was tried in secret and convicted without a defence lawyer. Instead, almost 18 months after he was arrested for allegedly circulating an article about women’s rights, any hope of justice and due process evaporated amid gross irregularities, allegations of corruption and coercion at the Supreme Court. Justices issued their decision in secret, without letting Mr Kambaksh’s lawyer submit so much as a word in his defence.
-
Archives
- August 2019
- July 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
-
Meta
And these are the “good guys” over there.
Just shows you the importance of due process. The next time that some yahoo rails on about “liberal” judges “making up” stuff on grounds of due process, think if this guy.
That should have read “think of this guy.”
GC: >Just shows you the importance of due process. The next time that some yahoo rails on about “liberal” judges “making up” stuff on grounds of due process, think if this guy.
Okay, Grant. If you’ve taken the time to check out the contributors to this site, and the sorts of writing on which they’ve made their reputations (and would you really leave hundreds of comments here without doing that?) you know that most, maybe even all, of your blogging hosts (Heather, Bradlaugh, me, etc.) have been highly critical of liberal judges who make it up as they go along but invoke pretexts of due process, equal protection, etc.
When you’re a guest in people’s living rooms, do you often find it advisable to call them “yahoos” to their face? If so, do you get invited back much?
“When you’re a guest in people’s living rooms, do you often find it advisable to call them ‘yahoos’ to their face? If so, do you get invited back much?”
First of all, I didn’t call you a yahoo. If you took it to mean you, than that is your perception; I was thinking of Limbaugh.
Second, you didn’t start a living room, you started a meeting hall. A private one, to be sure, but a meeting hall none the less. If you want only glowing commentary and comments that won’t offend your delicate sensibilities, then disable comments or institute a password protect. If you are interested in free exchange, on the other hand, then you have to expect occasional ruffled feathers. Free market of ideas.
Finally, if you’re constantly attacking the invocation of fundamental legal principles such as equal protection and due process – legal principles that help form the core of a respect for justice and the rule of law that should be at the center of everything that conservatives should wish to conserve – such that you think that I was attacking you specifically, then perhaps you should take some time to reexamine your position. It is those legal principles which are among the few things keeping us from barbarism.
Nice to know what we’re fighting and dieing for over there…
>GC: Second, you didn’t start a living room, you started a meeting hall.
Nope. It’s not a meeting hall. Now, it’s true that a more apt model would be a letters to the editor section — you might get away with some rudeness there, more of it than in a well-run living room.
The minute a commenter starts thinking he’s here by right is the minute I start looking for his overcoat to help him with.
Nope. It’s not a meeting hall. Now, it’s true that a more apt model would be a letters to the editor section — you might get away with some rudeness there, more of it than in a well-run living room.
The editors rarely speak back on the editorial page. Here, they participate in discussions. It may not be a meeting hall, but it sure isn’t a letters to the editor page.
And, further, I wasn’t rude. There are yahoos that promote every cause; that doesn’t mean that everyone who promotes said cause is a yahoo, even by implication. I don’t know if you are a yahoo or not. I don’t know your views, aside from that which you stated here, and frankly, if I had given it any thought to it before today, I would have just assumed that “Walter Olson” was a pseudonym.
But if me merely mentioning yahoos who degrade the very important legal protections afforded by the rights to equal protection and due process makes you believe that you, yourself, are being attacked, then, sir, I would suggest that perhaps you might benefit by reflecting on the possibility that perhaps these things are more important than you give them credit for and that these judges’ invocation of these rights might be more substantive than the mere “pretext” you suggest.
The minute a commenter starts thinking he’s here by right is the minute I start looking for his overcoat to help him with.
Well, the minute someone starts talking about helping me with my coat because I state my opinion forthrightly and because I favor free expression and discussion instead of stale agreement is the minute I find better places to spend my time.
@Grant Canyon
the minute I find better places to spend my time.
Well, alright then.
But I’m a bit confused about what’s being argued here. GC, are you contending that the doctrine (as it has become) of substantive due process has any support in the Constitution? Just asking.
Grant Canyon:
Warm and cozy, hain’t?
It is time to get out of that country and guard the borders so no terrorist punks get out. This is what fundalmentalist religion does to a country Pat Robertson and Family Research Council and Hertitage foundation. Keep religion out of government. The poor Afghans were invaded by sword carrying Arabs and destroyed this great country. Beware Europe and America.