Posts Tagged ‘Sabir Shah’

The News repeats “ludicrous” claims

Saturday, November 19th, 2011

The News (Jang Group)A curious article appears in The News today which claims that Jang Group researchers discovered that Mansoor Ijaz, the American millionaire at the center of the “memogate” controversy, had previously “negotiated between the United States and the Sudanese government in an otherwise failed effort to apprehend Osama bin Laden”. This is an old and well known claim of Mr Ijaz, and one that this blog researched when Mr Ijaz originally published his infamous opinion column in The Financial Times. While researchers at The News found quite a bit of information, what is curious is just what information they found – and what information they didn’t.

Despite their hard work, researchers at The News failed to discover news reports in the international media over the past two days that quote Clinton’s former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger terming Ijaz’s claims about his role in negotiations with Sudan as “ludicrous and irresponsible”.

The News‘s research staff didn’t even read this blog where we revealed that in 1997, The Washington Post reported that Mr Ijaz used his political connections to advance his financial interests in Sudan1.

Wealthy and well-connected, Ijaz was more than willing to pitch in. By Election Day in November, he had raised $525,000 for the Democratic cause, including $250,000 from his personal funds and $200,000 donated by guests at a fund-raising reception for Vice President Gore at Ijaz’s New York penthouse in September, according to Federal Election Commission records, White House documents and Ijaz.

Now Ijaz is trying to reap what he has sown. Having earned access to the Clinton administration through his fund-raising prowess, Ijaz has met with a succession of senior officials in the White House, State Department and Congress to further his business interests through changes in U.S. policy toward Islamic countries, particularly Sudan, a government long accused of sanctioning international terrorism.

Unfortunately, researchers at The News also forgot to read the report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States AKA The 9/11 Commission that says, “We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim.”

What information was The News able to find? Apparently they could only find the testimony of Mr Mansoor Ijaz himself before US Congress. Testimony that was considered by the US government as too unreliable to be included in the 9/11 Commission Report.

It appears that US officials who have met Mansoor Ijaz have a habit of terming his claims as ludicrious, unreliable, and uncredible. It is quite unfortunate that The News either could not find or forgot to include in their report all of the independent, third-party information. It might have been a little more informative than only taking Mr Ijaz’s word.

1. Ottaway, David B. ‘Democratic Fund-Raiser Pursues Agenda on Sudan’. The Washington Post. 29 April 1997.

Sloppy Editing or Misdirection?

Tuesday, June 14th, 2011

Daily Jang today posted an article with the headline “Uruguay kay sadder ka kul asasa 1987 model ki aik car, bank account hai na sadarati mehal mei qayam karty hain”, on its front page.

On further reading this small piece (please note that only the headline and first two lines are visible on the front page, rest of the article is in continuation and is at the end of the paper on page 10), one sees that after the first two lines, there is no link between the headline and the content.

The article states that Prime Minister house has expressed grave concern over the current situation in the country and has advised several agencies including interior minister Rehman Malik and related personnel to create a strategic plan to solve this dilemma. It also mentions that PM house is willing to offer any resources necessary for it.

The bigger question now is this: was this just plain carelessness and sloppy editing at Daily Jang, or was this headline carefully placed as an average person only skims through the headlines and the purpose of this particular headline was to indirectly accuse and promote the current government and leaders as corrupt and unbecoming of key positions? Either way, readers deserve better.

The News: Zardari Should Be More Like Dictators

Friday, May 13th, 2011

The News (Jang Group)The News (Jang Group) reports today that democratically elected President Asif Zardari should follow the examples of military dictators across the world. In a bizarre page 5 article, Jang Group reporter Sabir Shah writes that following the LHC verdict barring him from conducting political activities while in office, President Zardari “should seek inspiration” from the following “world statesmen”.

Jang Group's Great Advice

Mauritanian President-elect Gen. Mohamed Abdel Aziz. A career soldier and high-ranking officer, he was a leading figure in the August 2005 coup that deposed President Maaouya Ould Sid’Ahmed Taya, and in August 2008 he led another coup, that toppled President Sidi Ould Cheikh Abdallahi. This is who The News believes our president should look to?

Ahmadou Ahidjo, the former President of Cameroon, is another bizarre mentor to suggest for a democratic leader.

In November 1982, he resigned the presidency and handed over power to his Prime Minister and longtime associate, Paul Biya, but remained as head of the country’s single political party.

Soon, a power struggle broke out, and Mr. Ahidjo was accused of plotting against the Government. He went into exile in August 1983. In early 1984 he was sentenced to death in absentia by a Cameroon court. The sentence was later commuted to an indefinite term of detention. Mr. Ahidjo never returned to his native country.

Sabir Shah even suggests that Zardari study Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak!

On February 5, 2011, the then incumbent Egyptian President, Hosni Mubarak, had resigned as head of ruling National Democratic Party (NDP) against the backdrop of violent ant-government protests throughout the country, but it was too late by then.

Does Sabir Shah honestly expect us to believe that if Honsi Mubarak had resigned as head of his political party earlier, Egyptians would not have wanted to replace him?

Of all the political leaders in the world to follow the example of, why is the reporter from Jang Group suggesting that Zardari take inspiration from dictators? Here are some other world leaders that Zardari could take inspiration from who are not dictators:

Angela Merkel is the democratically elected Chancellor of Germany. Nicolas Sarkozy is the President of France. Juan Manuel Santos is the democratically elected President of Colombia. Argentina’s democratically elected President is Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner. Are these not leaders who are better sources of inspiration than dictators?

Of course, it should be noted that all of these democratically elected heads of state across the world are also leaders of their political parties. But I suppose that inconvenient fact would undermine someone’s political agenda.

Judicial Oversight Misrepresented in The News

Tuesday, September 28th, 2010

The News (Jang Group)In an article for The News yesterday, judicial oversight is severely misrepresented as judicial supremacy. Sabir Shah says that,

Courtesy their power of judicial review, courts in countries like the US, India, Germany, United Kingdom, Canada and Sweden etc literally enjoy unchallengeable supremacy over their respective legislative houses, a research conducted by The News shows.

Mr Shah’s research is incomplete and his conclusion is incorrect. Shah cites the famous Marbury versus Madison case of 1803, but fails to report that this case was decided exactly as it was in order for the Supreme Court to avoid challenging the US Constitution.

In fact, the US Supreme Court found that Mr Marbury had a right to his commission as Justice of the Peace, but that the Supreme Court did not have the right to force the Secretary of State to deliver the commission. The Supreme Court was asked to issue a ‘Writ of Mandamus’ or a command to the Secretary of State to deliver the commission to Mr Marbury, but the Supreme Court found that it did not have the constitutional authority to do so.

The authority given to the Supreme Court by the act establishing the judicial system of the United States to issue writs of mandamus to public officers appears not to be warranted by the Constitution.

The Supreme Court stated specifically that the Constitution is the highest law and that the Supreme Court cannot disobey what is written in the Constitution. So the law that was supposed to give the Supreme Court the ability to issue such commands was struck down.

If courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

Sabir Shah even provides the evidence against his spurious claims. As he reports, Article III of the US Constitution says:

The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority. In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.”

In the US, the legislative body of Congress can write in a law a few sentences telling that no court can review a particular law. And what is the result? The courts respect this because it is written in the Constitution that the legislature has the right to do so.

This is simply more of what Americans are calling the“journalistic garbage” that is coming from our media.

This is not the first time that The News has published incorrect information about judicial review and how courts treat their constitutions in other countries. It should be the last.

Conflicting Conspiracies in The News

Wednesday, July 21st, 2010

There appears to be a curious conflict of conspiracies in reports published by The News (Jang Group) on Wednesday regarding the HEC report submitted to the Education Ministry.

Ansar Abbasi reports that there is a conspiracy to change the contents of the report, and that the Education Minister Sardar Assef Ahmad Ali has sent the report back to HEC for editing.

Sources in the ministry confided to The News that the Education Minister Sardar Assef Ahmad Ali directed his secretary to ask the HEC chairman to withdraw the report and re-submit it with certain changes. The minister wanted the HEC chairman to delete the report’s portion mentioning the NA Committee on Education.

Following the minister’s direction, these sources said, the secretary education asked HEC Chairman Javed Leghari to withdraw the report and exclude from it the statement that the report should be forwarded to the NA Committee on Education.

But Sabir Shah writes in a different article that there is a conspiracy to bury the controversy by appointing a crony to cover it up.

It has also been learnt from the reliable sources that after meeting with the HEC chairman, Prime Minister Gilani held a detailed meeting with the education minister and Secretary Education Imtiaz Qazi in which they finalised the strategy to put the issue of fake degrees under the carpet.

According to the sources, the meeting remained focused on the ways to prolong and ultimately to do away with the issue of fake degrees of public representatives. However, Imtiaz Qazi denied having any knowledge about the meeting and the procedure to be followed in this regard. He also denied being present in the meeting. “I am not really aware about the whole issue. We are waiting for the in writing directives from the prime minister after which we would formulate our strategy,” he said.

According to the sources, nominating a minister for reviewing the process means that a single person would be handling the issue according to his own desire. “He would be accountable to nobody and there would not be any check over the process,” he said. Talking to The News, the Education Ministry spokesperson said that since the HEC comes under Education Ministry, therefore it could not communicate directly to parliamentary body.”

What makes these conflicting conspiracies especially interesting is that, according to Sabir Shah’s report, the report was not even delivered until late night.

The officials of Education Ministry did not receive any report in this regard till late night.

If the report was not delivered until late night, how did all of these people come up with so many conflicting conspiracies? And if there is some conspiracy, which is it?

In yet another article in the same day’s newspaper, Tariq Butt reports that there is a conspiracy to declare runners up as winners.

On the editorial page of the same newspaper, The News writes about a fourth conspiracy:

Going by what Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Babar Awan has said in an interview he gave to this newspaper, what may happen next is that the government could seek to promulgate new legislation, though the minister was vague as to its content. He said that there had been contact with several political parties (and that there was ‘documentary proof’ of this) seeking to lay the matter to rest. Their motivation for this will almost certainly be to protect politicians in the future from the withering blast of the media, as well as perhaps tightening their own internal selection procedures and criteria to ensure that those selected to represent us are less obviously liars and fakers. Considering his statement objectively, it does appear that the fake degree issue has given a severe jolt to those politicians who are self-serving and happy to deceive their electorates – who probably expect to be deceived anyway.

While it is disappointing that The News has such contempt for the people of Pakistan that it declares they “probably expect to be deceived anyway”, what is worse is that the editorial’s conspiracy theory contradicts what is reported elsewhere in the newspaper!

According to a report by Dilshad Azeem, the coalition partners have “rejected in plain words” any suggestion that they have been meeting to craft a law to protect fraud.

Muttahida Quami Movement (MQM), Awami National Party (ANP) and Jamiat-e-Ulema Islam (Fazl), the three parties providing the numbers for survival of the coalition government, confirmed that neither the government consulted them nor they had approached the key functionaries on the fake degrees issue.

They dubbed the law minister’s assertion as totally out of context and against their respective stands, and said that those MPs, who gave wrong information about their respective education or any other matter, must be dealt in accordance with the law of the land.

It appears that, with no reliable source of information, The News is simply publishing anything and everything with the hope that ‘something sticks’. But this is not journalism, is only guessing and gossiping. Furthermore, it is impossible to not notice that every ‘guess’ published in the newspaper has a particular angle – the government is doing something wrong. Certainly no journalist should assume that everything is done without some discussion of how to make uncomfortable matters ‘go away’, but also no responsible journalist should assume that there is always some dark scheme at work.

Whether or not someone thinks that the degree issue even matters, everyone deserves to have facts – not conspiracies. The web of conspiracies in The News has become so tangled that reading the newspaper one reader can come away with many different and conflicting versions of events. That’s not news reporting, it’s just gossip.

The News Gets Facts Wrong On Character

Monday, March 1st, 2010

The News today includes an article that claims, “Every constitution requires men of character to qualify as legislators.” While this seems like an unsurprising claim, the article gets several facts wrong.

The article, by Sabir Shah, claims that:

“…lawmakers in every country of the world are required to have crime-free life history in order to qualify as members of legislative houses or even after they manage to get elected to the houses.”

This is incorrect. In fact, it was easily found to be wrong with a simple Google search. I did a Google search for the phrase ‘legislators with criminal records’ and found that in India, ”As many as 125 candidates with criminal records have won in assembly elections of five states that have just concluded, says a study conducted by the National Election Watch (NEW).” In the USA, there are many legislators who have served with criminal records. Actually, according to Article 1 Section 6 of the American constitution grants immunity to legislators while they are in attendance to the Congress.

They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.

While there are certainly measures in many nations to remove from office individuals who commit high crimes such as treason or murder, it is not true that any criminal conviction will disqualify individuals from the legislature. More to the point, while “character” often makes up a qualification for holding office in many nations, what defines “character” differs greatly.

For example, the constitution of Saudi Arabia Says in Article 5 that “Rule passes to the sons of the founding King…the most upright among them is to receive allegiance…” This not only makes character an issue, but it also makes character comparative. That is, one of the sons will gain power no matter what (obviously, as it is a monarchy) – but that good character only matters in relation to the other sons. So, it is not necessarily a matter of the most righteous but could be the least bad! This is not the case, but it does show how these matters of character are very different from nation to nation and must be considered as such.

The News article is particularly curious as it is not only factually questionable, it seems to serve an ambiguous lesson. In other words, what is the point of this article? It is easy to assume that it is a thinly veiled swipe at NRO beneficiaries. Perhaps it is an article better published on the opinion page. First, though, the reporter should probably check his facts.