Judge gunned down in Quetta

QUETTA: Unidentified armed men shot dead Environmental Tribunal Judge Sakhi Sultan in his office in Shahbaz Town here on Friday morning.

Police officials said that two unknown armed men entered the office of the Environmental Protection Tribunal at around 10:45am and targeted the judge, Sakhi Sultan, with automatic weapons. Sultan sustained serious injuries while the attackers fled.

Sakhi Sultan, who had also been an activist of PPP, was rushed to the Civil Hospital but succumbed to his injuries before any treatment could be provided to him.The cause behind the cold blooded murder is yet to be ascertained. However, police believe that it was a target killing.

Soon after the incident, police officials rushed to the spot and started a probe. Seniors lawyers, office bearers of the Balochistan High Court Bar Association and the deceased judge’s family gathered at the hospital. Moving scenes were witnessed in the hospital.

Sakhi Sultan had also worked as a senior lawyer at the Supreme Court and High Court. Presently, he was discharging his duties as a judge of the Environmental Tribunal. In the past, he had been associated with the PPP and served as member of the central committee of PPP.

The office-bearers of the Balochistan Bar Association have strongly condemned the killing of Sakhi Sultan and announced three days of mourning against the cold-blooded murder of the judge.

Our correspondent adds from Islamabad: The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) on Friday strongly condemned the killing of Sakhi Sultan in Quetta and demanded of the government to take urgent measures for nabbing the culprits.

Soon after his gruesome killing, SCBA President Kamran Murtaza strongly condemned the assassination of Sakhi Sultan and demanded of the government to take speedy measures for arresting the culprits.

“We are going to give a call for strike across the country and will ask the Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) as well as bar councils in the provinces to boycott the court proceedings,” Kamran Murtaza told reporters at his office in the Supreme Court.

He recalled that he had already demanded of the government to ensure ample security to the judges and lawyers across the country keeping in view the prevailing law and order situation. However, he said, both the federal and provincial governments failed to take into account his request.

Meanwhile, it was reported that soon after the killing of Sakhi Sultan, the Pakistan Bar Council, Balochistan High Court and Balochistan Bar Association announced mourning and boycott of court proceedings for two days.

President of Balochistan Bar Association Bilal Anwar Kasi and President of Balochistan High Court Bar Mir Zahoor Shahwani strongly condemned the killing of Sakhi Sultan and said the lawyers would boycott court proceedings on Monday and Tuesday.

Judge dismisses lawsuit over drone strikes

WASHINGTON: A federal judge on Friday dismissed a lawsuit against Obama administration officials for the 2011 drone-strike killings of three US citizens in Yemen.

US District Judge Rosemary Collyer said the case raises serious constitutional issues and is not easy to answer, but that "on these facts and under this circuit's precedent," the court will grant the Obama administration's request.

The suit was against then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, then-CIA Director David Petraeus and two commanders in the military's Special Operations forces.

Permitting a lawsuit against individual officials "under the circumstances of this case would impermissibly draw the court into 'the heart of executive and military planning and deliberation,'" said Collyer. She said the suit would require the court to examine national security policy and the military chain of command as well as operational combat decisions regarding the designation of targets and how best to counter threats to the United States.

"Defendants must be trusted and expected to act in accordance with the U.S. Constitution when they intentionally target a U.S. citizen abroad at the direction of the president and with the concurrence of Congress," said Collyer. "They cannot be held personally responsible in monetary damages for conducting war." The lawsuit sought unspecified damages.

At oral arguments last July, the judge challenged the Obama administration's position repeatedly, pointedly asking "where was the due process in this case?" for the now-dead U.S. citizens targeted in the drone attacks. When an administration lawyer said there were checks in place, including reviews done by the executive branch, Collyer said "No, no, no, no, no," declaring that "the executive is not an effective check on the executive" when it comes to protecting constitutional rights. But in Friday's ruling, it was clear that the administration's arguments had a strong impact on the judge, who was appointed by President George W. Bush.

The government argued that the issue is best left to Congress and the executive branch, not judges, and that courts have recognized that the defense of the nation should be left to those political branches.

Anwar al-Awlaki's classification as a key leader raises fundamental questions regarding the conduct of armed conflict, Collyer's 41-page opinion stated. The Constitution commits decision-making in this area to the president, as commander in chief, and to Congress, the judge said.

U.S.-born al-Qaeda leader al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, an al-Qaeda propagandist, were killed in a drone strike in September 2011. Al-Awlaki's 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman, was killed the following month.

The lawsuit was filed by Nasser al-Awlaki - Anwar's father and the teen's grandfather - and by Sarah Khan, Samir Khan's mother.

Judge dismisses lawsuit over drone strikes

WASHINGTON: A federal judge on Friday dismissed a lawsuit against Obama administration officials for the 2011 drone-strike killings of three US citizens in Yemen.

US District Judge Rosemary Collyer said the case raises serious constitutional issues and is not easy to answer, but that "on these facts and under this circuit's precedent," the court will grant the Obama administration's request.

The suit was against then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, then-CIA Director David Petraeus and two commanders in the military's Special Operations forces.

Permitting a lawsuit against individual officials "under the circumstances of this case would impermissibly draw the court into 'the heart of executive and military planning and deliberation,'" said Collyer. She said the suit would require the court to examine national security policy and the military chain of command as well as operational combat decisions regarding the designation of targets and how best to counter threats to the United States.

"Defendants must be trusted and expected to act in accordance with the U.S. Constitution when they intentionally target a U.S. citizen abroad at the direction of the president and with the concurrence of Congress," said Collyer. "They cannot be held personally responsible in monetary damages for conducting war." The lawsuit sought unspecified damages.

At oral arguments last July, the judge challenged the Obama administration's position repeatedly, pointedly asking "where was the due process in this case?" for the now-dead U.S. citizens targeted in the drone attacks. When an administration lawyer said there were checks in place, including reviews done by the executive branch, Collyer said "No, no, no, no, no," declaring that "the executive is not an effective check on the executive" when it comes to protecting constitutional rights. But in Friday's ruling, it was clear that the administration's arguments had a strong impact on the judge, who was appointed by President George W. Bush.

The government argued that the issue is best left to Congress and the executive branch, not judges, and that courts have recognized that the defense of the nation should be left to those political branches.

Anwar al-Awlaki's classification as a key leader raises fundamental questions regarding the conduct of armed conflict, Collyer's 41-page opinion stated. The Constitution commits decision-making in this area to the president, as commander in chief, and to Congress, the judge said.

U.S.-born al-Qaeda leader al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, an al-Qaeda propagandist, were killed in a drone strike in September 2011. Al-Awlaki's 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman, was killed the following month.

The lawsuit was filed by Nasser al-Awlaki - Anwar's father and the teen's grandfather - and by Sarah Khan, Samir Khan's mother.

Report on death of judge Rafaqat Awan released

ISLAMABAD: Additional Sessions Judge Rafaqat Ahmad Khan Awan (Shaheed) received bullets from the official revolver No.522228D issued on 23.01.2014 to his gunman Constable Babar Hussain, C/4311, Security Division, Islamabad, said a police report on Saturday.
The investigation of tragic incident of F-8 Kutchehri (district courts) is underway, under different teams of police and the Joint Investigation Team (JIT).
According to initial evidence, Rafaqat Awan was martyred inside chamber behind his courtroom, where his blood was found on the floor, with no signs of dripping blood anywhere else.
There is no evidence of any distant gunshot of Kalashnikov 7.62 mm (used by terrorists) in the courtroom, on the door of the chamber or any place/wall inside the chamber, the report said.
It further said there was evidence of contact shot (with gun-powder blackening) on the door of the chamber, which suggested a small entry and not a 7.62 mm bullet (Kalashnikov).
"There is also evidence of another shot of revolver on the wooden wall of the chamber fired from inside; slug has been recovered from the scene.
"There is corresponding evidence of two shots on the clothes of the Shaheed (martyred) ASJ. The entry hole on the vest clearly shows blackening, which proves a near-contact shot from a small arm and not a 7.62 mm bullet (Kalashnikov)," the report added.
The post mortem report also showed two entry wounds on the body of the Shaheed ASJ, one on the left forearm, 2x1 cm, (it caused two injuries) and another on the left side of chest (that proved fatal). This fatal fire-arm on chest with "blackening & charring marks" was a near-contact shot. The post-mortem was conducted by a board of three medico-legal experts.
"This medico-legal evidence (entry-wound size coupled with "blackening & charring marks") also suggests that gun-shots were a near-contact shot from a small arm and not a 7.62 mm bullet (Kalashnikov)," the report added.
The corroborative evidence mentioned above clearly showed that there was proof of only four gun-shots fired inside the chamber. Three empty shells and a slug (lead) had been recovered, and the official revolver from which they were fired, matched. The same were taken into custody and dispatched for FSL examination from NFSA.
The gunman Babar Hussain, C/4311, who was deputed on the written request of ASJ-VI, Rafaqat Ahmad Khan Awan (Shaheed), vide memo No.4, dated 15/01/2014, has been formally arrested due to the above irrefutable evidence and his three-day physical remand obtained from the Anti- Terrorism Court, the report said.

Judge rejects Apple bid to ban Samsung devices

SAN FRANCISCO: A federal judge Thursday rejected Apple's request to ban an array of Samsung smartphones and tablets found to have infringed on patents held by the US tech giant.
US District Judge Lucy Koh, who oversaw the blockbuster patent trial, finalized the damage award to be paid by the South Korean electronics giant at $929 million.
But in a separate order, the judge denied Apple's request to ban 23 Samsung devices, saying there was no evidence that consumer demand was driven by the infringing elements.
"To persuade the court to grant Apple such an extraordinary injunction -- to bar such complex devices for incorporating three touchscreen software features -- Apple bears the burden to prove that these three touchscreen software features drive consumer demand for Samsung's products," the judge wrote. "Apple has not met this burden."
A jury last year awarded more than $1 billion to Apple for patent infringement, but the judge threw out some of that award and ordered a partial retrial. The final amount awarded was $929 million.
Both sides have been appealing various aspects of the case, which is likely to be tied up in courts for some time barring an agreement between the two companies.
But because of the fast-moving nature of the business, the devices at issue in the case are no longer being sold.
Judge Koh noted that "the only new fact is that Samsung represents that no infringing units are currently in the marketplace."
She added that "Apple presents no evidence that any current Samsung devices incorporate the patented features. As such, it appears that the public interest slightly favors Samsung."