Roman Polanski.

In Switzerland, the lawyer for film director Roman Polanski said Monday he will fight American attempts to extradite Polanski to the United States in a sex case that goes back more than 30 years.

The 76-year-old director was arrested Saturday on arrival in Zurich to receive a lifetime achievement award from a film festival. Polanski pleaded guilty in California to having sex with a 13-year-old girl in 1977, but then fled to France before his sentencing. French officials have expressed astonishment over the arrest, one calling it a “bit sinister.”

Should Roman Polanski be extradited to the U.S. to face sentencing in a case that is now more than three decades old?

Tell us what you think in the comments section below. Please remember to be respectful and on-point in your comments. Malicious or offensive comments will be deleted and repeat offenders will be banned.

Baltasar Garzón, Spain’s most prominent jurist. Photo: Presidencia Argentina

A right-wing organization in Spain has tried to turn the tables on Baltasar Garzón, the country’s most prominent jurist. Garzón found himself in the dock this week in Madrid, charged by a group calling itself “Clean Hands,” for allegedly overstepping his authority by investigating atrocities during the dictatorship of Francisco Franco three-quarters of a century ago.

Garzón never faced such scrutiny on his other prominent campaigns: He had the freedom and temerity to indict Chile’s Augusto Pinochet, file charges against Argentine military officers for their role during that country’s “Dirty War” of the 1970s and 1980s, and criticize and consider indictments against U.S. officials during the Bush administration for the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo.

Garzón testified for more than three hours on Wednesday in Spain’s Supreme Court. He has said his responsibility was no more and no less than to apply the law “to investigate the facts, to ferret out responsibility for the protection of the victims.”

The matter at hand is unfinished business: Charges of mass graves, kangaroo courts and barbaric human rights violations committed by the Franco regime. The challenge to his authority makes it clear: the Spanish Civil War still roils emotion and divides political sentiment. The conservative opposition Popular Party, which was in power and closely allied with the Bush administration during the Iraq invasion, virulently opposes Garzón’s investigation. So does the Catholic Church in Spain, which warns that an investigation would “open old wounds.”

Thirty-four years after Franco’s death, the children and grandchildren of those who defended the Spanish republic against Franco -– who was supported by Hitler and Mussolini in a dress rehearsal for World War II –- seek a full accounting of the past. There are numerous stories around the country of mass graves still undiscovered, atrocities not documented. For some, it is a matter of conscience; for others, like those who challenge Garzón, it is dangerous to cast light on the violence of the Franco period.

Garzón, by the way, is not considered a left-wing ideologue. In the course of his career, he has faced criticism from both sides of the spectrum. In the matter at hand, he is defended by the governing Social Democratic Party and supported by significant editorial comment.

The influential Madrid daily El Pais, for example, expressed outrage that “ultra-rightwing” political groups could influence the Supreme Court.  “There is no explanation, unless it has to do with pure repression based on ideology,” El Pais said in an editorial. “One cannot cease to be astonished that, in effect, the judge that brought Pinochet to justice and who investigated crimes against  humanity in the Southern Cone during the 1970s, should be pursued criminally for trying to do the same thing in his own country. If this doesn’t stop in time, the case will turn grotesque and cause enormous international shock.”

The battle brings to mind the wise old words of George Santayana: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Garzón has sought to hold international leaders to a simple test of justice under civilized law. It is a lesson of all.

- Peter Eisner

Lebanese pop singer Suzanne Tamim was found murdered in July 2008. Photo: Official Web Site

In a case that has captivated the Arab world, multimillionaire Egyptian businessman Hisham Talaat Moustafa was sentenced to death on Thursday for his role in the killing of a former lover, Lebanese pop singer Suzanne Tamim.

Many had wondered if Moustafa would go free, thanks to his wealth and connections to President Hosni Mubarak’s family. 

Blogger Will at “Notes from the Underground” disagrees with the verdict, arguing against the death penalty:

I’m against capital punishment, and even more so with fishy cases like that of the guy who killed Layla Ghoufran’s daughter and most recently Hisham Talaat Moustafa. The problem with such cases is that it’s obvious there is something wrong with them, something doesn’t add up and that presents what is referred to as reasonable doubt. 

The fact that there is reasonable doubt is enough to set someone free, and perhaps I’m not even asking that, only asking that he not be put to death.

[...]The death of a businessman reflects an extremity that is so characteristic of our country. In Egypt so many bad deeds go unpunished and when the law is implemented, it can take an extreme of being implemented with too much viciousness according to the whim of those entrusted with its implementation. We’re extremists in our lethargy and in our viciousness. We turn a blind eye to many evils and when it comes to punishing, we kill even if there isn’t enough proof and we burry alive those poor pigs who have done us no harm.  

But user “3abirsabeel” disagrees, responding in the comments: 

It is good that finally one of Egypt’s corrupt businessmen will be punished instead of the usual way of buying their way out of trouble with big bucks and framing somebody else who didn’t have quite the right wasta or enough money to counter.

The “7starsdubai” blog writes that the verdict suggests that even the well-connected are not beyond the rule of law in Egypt:

When a crime is committed in the Middle East and nobody is punished, invariably the explanation is that the rich and powerful have proved once again that they are beyond the reach of the law.

For years the shady activities of Gulf sheikhs, powerful ministers and rich businessmen have been swept under the carpet. But something profound could be changing in the Arab world.

Thanks in part to the advance of technology, satellite news channels and internet blogs, the elite are no longer shielded from public scrutiny. Now they may also have to answer to the law.

Now we have the case in Egypt of Hisham Moustafa, a businessman and member of Cairo’s elite being sentenced to death for ordering the murder of Suzanne Tamim.

The actions could give renewed hope to others seeking justice in the region, like the family of Martine Vik Magnussen, the Norwegian student who was murdered in London last year. Police want to question Farouk Abdulhak, the son of an Arab billionaire, who left Britain soon after the murder in Mayfair and is now in Yemen.

A blogger at “Egyptian Chronicles” agrees, stating that the verdict has political and social significance in Egypt: 

I expected this verdict somehow because of its political and social significance:

1) The Egyptian Government does not protect its men, the NDP men, the businessmen tycoon regardless of how big they are and how strong their connection with Mubarak’s family is.

2) There is no difference between a businessman tycoon, former state security officer and a poor man who are accused of murder, they will face the death penalty judgment.

3) There are three countries involved in the case besides Egypt : UAE , UK and Lebanon , already there were rumors in UAE last year that Egypt wanted to prosecute both men in the country in order to give an opportunity to Hisham to flee the punishment.

Another move could represent one of the biggest breakthroughs in Cuban-American relations since Fidel Castro took power 50 years ago —  the perjury indictment that attracted little attention last week when it was issued in El Paso, Texas, against an 81-year-old Cuban exile linked to bombings in Cuba. Worldfocus correspondent Peter Eisner reports on the implications of the indictment.

The prisons, known as “black sites,” were said to be in a variety of countries, including Afghanistan, Thailand, Poland and Romania, among others. Only a few detainees have been kept in them in recent years. Most were sent to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, which will also be closed.

Joanne Mariner, the director of the terrorism and counter-terrorism program of Human Rights Watch, joins Daljit Dhaliwal to discuss how U.S. counter-terrorism efforts will change under President Obama and how terror suspects will be handled in the future.

Schools have been destroyed by violence in Pakistan’s Swat Valley, but some are reopening under the new peace deal with militants. Photo: IRIN

In Pakistan on Tuesday, Taliban militants agreed to extend a cease-fire in Swat Valley, which is largely under control of the militants. Violence in the area has killed hundreds, and up to a third of the population has left.

The Taliban said the cease-fire announced with the government last week would be extended for an indefinite period. As part of the truce, the government agreed to allow the Taliban to impose stricter Islamic law.

The truce has brought relative peace to the area, with schools re-opening. But some argue that the price for this respite is too high, and that the government has conceded to insurgents.

A blogger at “Deadpan Thoughts” in Karachi, Pakistan, criticizes the government for the deal:

So what have we gained from this ceasefire? Stoppage of the bloodshed I guess and the return of Swat to perhaps a peaceful state.  However we have also left the implementation of this shariah law in the hands of people who may chose to do with it as they want. [...]

Thus in short the government of Pakistan has abandoned Swat to the wolves, and our esteemed politicians are more than happy crowing about the saving of lives and what not, going on about their bandwagon long march with no goal in sight.

Blogger Ahmed Humayun at World Politics Review agrees, arguing that the deal will have severe and damaging effects on the power of the state:

What has prompted the government to surrender its electoral mandate? Fear. In recent months, 12,000 Pakistani troops stationed in Swat and its surrounding environs have been unable to dislodge 3,000 determined militants. Extremists have killed tribal elders, law enforcement officers, and elected representatives of the ANP, and then displayed their bodies in public squares. After repeated assassination attempts on his life, even the ANP’s leader was forced to temporarily flee the province three months ago.

[...]If Pakistan eventually sets up the courts demanded by the militants, it will have ratified a new political dispensation where non-state actors are free to dictate state policy. Islamists will be convinced that what they cannot achieve electorally, they can win through armed force. As it currently stands, rather than isolating and marginalizing extremists, the compact has conferred legitimacy on radical ideology and vindicated jihadist tactics.

Blogger “Zaheerul Hassan” in Lahore disagrees, writing that Pakistan should look for more opportunities to work with Islamists:

Islamists whom we brand as extremists and terrorists, if handled wisely, can become the real strategic assets of Pakistan. [...] I reckon, whether we like it or not, we will have to admit that the Islamists are the best fighting force available in Pakistan. By virtue of rough terrain and inclement weather conditions they live in, frugal way of living, valorous stories of their rich past, their ability to fight and use the gun and to brave extreme hardships, closeness to religion and believing in life hereafter, fearless and preferring to die than to surrender, not leaving their dead or wounded in battle behind under any circumstances, dedicated to the given cause and fighting their foes to the last irrespective of superiority of the enemy in terms of manpower, material and technology.

[...]Accord in Swat is a good beginning which must be followed up. Unwarranted concerns expressed by USA, western countries and India must be ignored. President Zardari should give peace a chance and shouldnʼt dither signing the accord. If this chance is frittered away under pressure from our detractors, the bloodletting would intensify with harrowing consequences.

The agreement could have implications on both sides of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

Ahmad Kamal, a former Pakistani ambassador to the United Nations, speaks with Martin Savidge about the impact of the deal on America’s war on terror and on the Taliban presence in Pakistan.

Read what a Worldfocus contributing blogger had to say about the Swat Valley deal: Pakistan adopts Islamic law in Swat Valley.

Pakistan’s Swat Valley is now under sharia law.

Pakistan this week agreed to a peace deal with the Taliban in the area known as the Swat Valley, suspending its military offensive and imposing tough Islamic law in that area. Religious experts will now sit in courts with judges to make sure rulings comply with Islam.

U.S. officials have expressed great concern about the deal struck between the Pakistani government and Taliban leaders.

See the Worldfocus interview about Swat Valley: Pakistan strikes peace deal with Taliban.

Jauhar Ismail blogs at “All Things Pakistan” and discusses the implications of the agreement for the U.S. and for locals in Swat Valley.

Deal in Swat: Good Move or Bad Move?

In my opinion, the devil is really in the details and the implementation of this agreement. I have mixed feeling on this: It is hard to see how the situation in Swat can be controlled only through the military means; there has to be a political dimension. This is what the U.S. is also learning the hard way in Afghanistan where there is already a talk of having some sort of adjustment with “moderate Afghan Taliban”.

In an ideal world, you would have hoped that Pakistan army would have gained the upper hand in Swat and then they could have negotiated from the position of strength. Unfortunately this is not the case. Despite several attempts, the army could not make any significant gains in Swat. Part of this is due to bad strategy and partly due the nature of guerrilla-warfare. Pakistan army was never trained to fight a counter-insurgency; fighting against India is what the focus has been so it does’t come as a surprise that it didn’t perform very well.

As far as their strategy goes, it was based primarily on using gunships and (artillery) shelling against suspected militant hide-outs. This approach is not very conducive to counter-insurgency because it leads to a lot of collateral damage. As the U.S. experience in Iraq shows, your mission in such a situation must really be to “secure the population”. This was the fundamental change in strategy that U.S. Gen. David Petraeus made but such a change requires putting a lot of boots on the ground, taking a lot more causalities and better intelligence. Unfortunately the Pak army was unwilling and incapable to take this approach which resulted in the bloody Swat stalemate.

Against this backdrop, the agreement can offer a way out if government can play its cards correctly. It should also be noted that this is not the first time that Swat will be under the so-called Shari’s law. This was the case for decades when Swat/Dir region was part of the princely state and life was governed by “Customary law”. The elected representatives of the Swat region have also been in favor of incorporating some populist militant demands such as Qazi courts and quick and simply justice with a 6 months deadline to process all cases.

One can hope that by incorporating the populist demands and a willingness to understand and work with local sensitivities, the authorities can gain credibility with the local population and take some of the wind out of the insurgency’s sails.

To read more, see the original post.

The views expressed by contributing bloggers do not reflect the views of Worldfocus or its partners.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user Scott Christian under a Creative Commons license.

The controversial move to legalize abortion has been challenged in the Supreme Court and upheld. Ninety percent of Mexico’s population is Catholic.

Martin Savidge travels to populous Mexico City, where the abortion debate rages on.

Below, bloggers in Mexico and elsewhere voice their support or opposition to the city’s legalization of abortion — a rarity in Latin American countries.

Reverend Thomas Euteneuer of Human Life International writes about his organization’s trip to Mexico, where they prayed in front of an abortion clinic. He calls Mexico City’s law “cruel and inhumane.”

The “Guanabee” blog argues that abortion is much more than a religious issue, writing that it also involves class, gender politics and culture issues.

“The Unapologetic Mexican” blog writes that media coverage of the legalization was biased and virtually ignored women’s voices, but calls the new law “a good start.”

The “South Chicagoan” blog writes that Mexico City’s decision to provide free Viagra to elderly men reflects gender bias when it comes to sexuality, since it is still so difficult to get an abortion.

The “Ciudad de Mexico” blog (in Spanish) wonders why Mexico City’s legislators did not engage in public debate on the issue prior to the legalization. (See Google’s English translation of the entry)

Blogger “Jo Tuckman” writes that it is amazing how far Mexico has come in such a short period of time.

For more on the abortion debate in Latin American countries, see what a Worldfocus contributing blogger had to say about the Urguayan president’s veto of a bill that would have legalized abortion in that country.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user emilyjmc06 under a Creative Commons license.

A banner for presidential elections shows Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev, proclaiming “Together, we will be victorious!”

On Friday, Russian lawmakers voted to extend the presidential term from four to six years. The bill, proposed by President Dmitry Medvedev, faces one more reading before becoming law, and has led to suspicions that Prime Minister Vladmir Putin will reclaim the presidency.

In compliance with constitutional requirements, Putin stepped down as president earlier this year. He appointed Medvedev, who has been called his “puppet.” If Putin returns to the presidential seat, he could serve a total of 20 years in the position.

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty correspondent Brian Whitmore writes at “The Power Vertical” blog about another possible job title for Putin — speaker of the State Duma — and explores the politician’s consolidation of power under various job titles.

Prime Minister. President. Speaker. Does It Really Matter?

Another day, another round of speculation about a new job for Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.

When President Dmitry Medvedev submitted legislation to the State Duma last week proposing extending the presidential term from four years to six, it sent the Moscow punditocracy abuzz with anticipation that Putin was gearing up for a return to the Kremlin.

This week, however, the talk is all about Putin getting himself named speaker of the State Duma.

Prime Minister. President. Speaker. But does it really matter?

A brief story in today’s “The Moscow Times” by Nabi Abdullaev had an interesting little nugget suggesting that it doesn’t. Putin is planning to continue his tradition of holding a televised question-and-answer session with ordinary citizens via video link early next year. It will be Putin’s seventh such session, and his first since leaving the presidency.

Abdullaev quoted an unidentified senior official from the ruling Unified Russia party as saying that with the broadcast, Putin “will act more in the role of party leader than prime minister.”

It has become abundantly clear that Putin will continue to be Russia’s true ruler. But the true source of his power will not be a state post like president, speaker, or prime minister. This is mere window-dressing.

Putin’s real power will stem from Unified Russia and its sprawling system of nomenklatura that encompasses not just the federal parliament and government, but also regional legislatures, local governments, and the commercial elite. The road to success in business, politics or academia in Russia today runs through the party’s Byzantine labyrinth.

This is how pre-perestroika Soviet leaders ruled from Stalin to Chernenko. And it is how we can expect Putin to rule as well.

It is probably just a matter of time before the party’s general-secretary formally moves his office to the Kremlin.

See the original post.

The views expressed by contributing bloggers do not reflect the views of Worldfocus or its partners.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user Neeka under a Creative Commons license.

President Tabaré Vázquez vetoed a bill that would have legalized abortion in Uruguay. Photo: Presidencia de la Republica Oriental del Uruguay

President Tabaré Vázquez used his veto pen to stop a bill that would have legalized abortion in Uruguay, keeping the procedure illegal.

Uruguay has been secular for much of its history, unlike many other Latin American nations. The bill had passed in the Uruguayan House and Senate, but parliament did not gain the three-fifths support necessary to override Vázquez ’s veto. The president, a doctor, cited “the reality of the existence of human life in the gestation period” in his explanation for the veto.

Benjamin Gedan is a Fulbright research scholar living in Montevideo and studying the Uruguayan media. He writes at his blog, “Small State,” about the ongoing Uruguayan abortion debate.

In secular Uruguay, abortion still a criminal act

At first glance, the decision by Uruguayan President Tabaré Vázquez to veto legislation legalizing abortion in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy is surprising. After all, the president’s own party, the Frente Amplio, promoted the legislation in both the House and Senate. The very fact that abortion is illegal in Uruguay, by far the most secular country in Latin America, seems out of place. For example, in Mexico, where the Catholic Church is far more influential, the capital city legalized abortion in April 2007.

But what seems clear is that Uruguayans are far more comfortable skipping out on church on Sunday than accepting abortion. A recent poll by Interconsult found that only 57 percent of Uruguayans support the legalization of abortion, the BBC reported.

In a statement, Vázquez framed his objections in secular terms: “Los derechos son la ética de la democracia, la vida de todos es el bien primero por el que deben velar los gobiernos democráticos” (”Legal rights are the ethics of democracy, and human life is the primary object that democratic governments should value”). But as my Fulbright colleague and guest-blogger Todd Martinez has observed, Uruguayans, though hardly churchgoers, are not exactly atheists either. Read Todd’s take on the abortion debate here.

I’ve heard that Vázquez may ultimately come out in favor of a referendum on the abortion issue, or simply leave the issue to the next president. If the Frente Amplio wins the presidency for the second time and keeps control of Congress, Uruguay may very well end up with an abortion law that matches its global image. For now, however, women who have an abortion and the doctors who help them still face prison, and abortion is only allowed in cases of rape or if the life of the mother is in danger.

See the original post.

The views expressed by contributing bloggers do not reflect the views of Worldfocus or its partners.

Assisted suicide is illegal in Britain and in most parts of the U.S.

Debbie Purdy, a British woman with multiple sclerosis, lost her case demanding clarity on assisted suicide law from England’s High Court.

Assisted suicide is illegal in Britain, but the legality of helping take someone abroad for assisted suicide is unclear.

Purdy has considered having her husband take her to to die at a clinic in Switzerland — where assisted suicide is legal — once she is no longer able to take herself. However, she fears that her husband could be prosecuted upon his return to Britain.

The Director of Public Prosecutions refused to address the situation before the assisted suicide actually takes place. Now, the High Court has defended his refusal, claiming that such determination would require a change in the law.

Purdy’s legal argument is that the lack of clarity violates her human rights because she will have to end her life earlier, on her own, instead of risking the prosecution of her husband.

Zan de Man of the “Politics & Current Affairs” forum writes that “it’s a powerful irony that the law against procuring, counseling, or assisting suicide may shorten her life.”

Posting about the recent case of rugby player Daniel James, Abhishek of the “Muse Free” blog “believes that suicide is one of the most fundamental rights of a human being,” but that “those who believe in imposing their value judgments on others” will seek convictions for their own relief.

Wesley J. Smith of the “Secondhand Smoke” blog thinks the activism, media attention and controversy surrounding Purdy’s case misses am important point — that Purdy’s desire to end her life sends an insidious message that the lives of those suffering from difficult conditions are not worth living.

In considering the situation, JD at “My Beloved Monster and Me” reminds readers that, despite the repeated media use of the phrase “terminal illness,” MS is a disease that people die with, not of.

The European Court of Human Rights considers assisted suicide to be a violation of its human rights conventions, and bills to legalize assisted suicide in Britain have been continually rejected.

In the U.S., assisted suicide is legal in Oregon under certain conditions under the Death with Dignity Act. The state of Washington plans to vote on an assisted suicide initiative next Tuesday.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user Scoobyfoo under a Creative Commons license.