Mediaboss Marketing

In 2021, the International Tribunal On US Human Rights Abuses Against Black, Brown, and Indigenous Peoples found the United States government guilty of genocide. The tribunal drew upon the legacy of the 1951 petition submitted to the United Nations by the Civil Rights Congress: We Charge Genocide: The Crime of Government Against the Negro People. Jalil Muntaqim joinsRattling the Barsto discuss his life, the USs long history of genocide, the need for a New Afrikan independence movement in the US, and the strategy to internationalize this struggle beyond compromised institutions such as the United Nations.

Click here to learn more about the Spirit of Mandela campaign to organize a Peoples Senate.

Jalil Muntaqim is a former member of the Black Panther Party and the Black Liberation Army. He was incarcerated for 49 years as a political prisoner of the United States, and released in 2020. Muntaqims is the author of several books, the most recent of which isWe Are Our Own Liberators: Selected Prison Writings.

Studio/Post-Production: Cameron Granadino

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

Mansa Musa:

Welcome to this edition of Rattling the Bars, Im Mansa Musa. And today we have a comrade of mine and a good brother, a freedom fighter, former political prisoner, prisoner of war Jalil Muntaqim. Welcome to Rattling the Bars, Jalil.

Jalil Muntaqim:

Salaam alaykum, jambo, guten tag, peace, whatever your language is, I speak to you and address you in solidarity and peace.

Mansa Musa:

And before we get started, Ramadan mubarak.

Jalil Muntaqim:

[Foreign language], brother, I appreciate that. Thank you for your time.

Mansa Musa:

Yes sir. And tell Rattling the Bars audience a little about who is Jalil Muntaqim.

Jalil Muntaqim:

Thats a good question. Thats a long sense of answer to that question. Jalil Muntaqim, I am a veteran member of the Black Panther Party, Black Liberation Army. I have been engaged in the struggle since age of 16. I actually have engaged in struggle since I was born, you might say. Let me just preface this one. My mom was a student of African dance as a young child and she used to teach African dance to myself and my sister. And her teacher told her that we are of African descent and this is what she taught us, so I was raised with the understanding that I was of African descent.

She did not allow us to be identified or named a Negro or a [inaudible] or a Black person or any other derogatory names that has been launched against our Black people in this country, African people in this country. And so as a result of that I always had been conscious of the reality of our situation here in this country. At the age of 16, I joined the Black Panther Party, became a member of the Black Panther Party. And at the age of 18 I was recruited into the Black Underground. By the time I was 19, I was with Black Underground, that evolved and turned into the Black Liberation Army. By the time I was 19, I was captured.

I was captured on August 28th, 1971, the week after they murdered Comrade George Jackson on August 21st, 1971. Allegedly our action was in retaliation of his murder. The resulted in my being in prison for 49 plus years, almost 50 years in prison, as a result. I didnt get out until October 6th, 2020. And Im also an author. Ive written two books, one called We Are Our Own Liberators, and anybody interested, they can get it from blackdragonmme.com. We Are Our Own Liberators, blackdragonmme.com. And the other book Ive written have published is called Escaping the Prism: Fade to Black.

And that can be obtained from AK Press. Let me see what else. As a result of my incarceration, I continued to be an organizer. I was an organizer while I was in high school. I started the first Black student union in my high school and I was in San Jose, California. And as a result of that, we was able to get Black study programs established because there was no ethnic programs in the schools back then. And so we was able to get Black studies program going on at that time. And so as my process of my evolving when I went to prison, I continued to organize in 1970-

Mansa Musa:

Well stop right there. Because we want I got you. But no, thats good information. And in full disclosure to our audience, I met Jalil as he was getting ready to go into his prison organized. I met Jalil in, I think it was 73 when they was making a call to take the issue of political prison, prisons of war to the UN. And its right at this juncture that I want to open the next question is, walk us through the progression of the strategy to internationalize Americas oppression of Black and Brown people.

Give us a Because we know that your strategy has been, and your organizational strategy has been to internationalize our struggle. And you find a lot of conversation around why internationalize it when we have a And people have a tendency to look at the national problem, whats going on on a national level and feel as though when you say international, its almost as if you overlooking local situations. So as walk us through that progression.

Jalil Muntaqim:

Very good. Back in 1975, I returned from New York City to San Quentin Prison. And at the time when I returned back to San Quentin Prison, I was put in Adjustment Center. And as a result of me placed in Justice Center, I decided it was necessary for us to move forward in terms of our struggle. One of the things that when I was in Adjustment Center, I was locked next door to [inaudible 00:05:19], the oldest political prison in the United States today.

Mansa Musa:

Thats right.

Jalil Muntaqim:

And San Quentin [inaudible 00:05:25] on the same gallery, he was in Adjustment Center. The area where Comrade George was murdered at. And I received a pamphlet, a newsletter from a National Committee of the Defense of Political Prisoners, was a committee that was put together in support of the Panther 21 case right back in 1970s, in 70, 71. Yuri Kochiyama, who was a friend and member of the AAOU, African-American organization that Malcolm X had put together. She sent me a newsletter, and in the newsletter, they talk about human rights and the issues of human rights.

So at that point in time and knowing that El-Haj Malik Shabazz had told us, he had instructed us that its necessity for us to take our struggle to the international arena and that our struggle is more than just a civil rights, its a human rights. And with that understanding, El-Haj Malik Shabazz says, For long as we continue to maintain our struggle within the civil rights dynamics of struggle, that the United States will continue to confine our struggle within those parameters within the jurisdiction of the United States. Thats been a civil rights issue. And he said that, El-Haj Malik Shabazz, Malcolm X said that we need to take it to the international community and make our struggle a human rights one.

And so at that point in time, when I decided that was necessary for us to establish what I organized, what they called the US Prisons Petition Campaign to the United Nations. And this was the first petition campaign that was submitted to the United Nations that dealt with the issues, not only the conditions of our prison situation, but also the issues of existence of political prisons in the United States. So thats one other area for which we began to internationalize our struggle. Now naturally, as you well know, prior to that, our struggle has been internationalized due to Black Panther Party.

Was internationalized when Robert Williams went into exile. He had to go to Cuba and went to China. And then for other places talking about our struggle. Eldridge Cleaver, when they established the Black Panther Party office in Algeria, they traveled throughout the country. Huey P. Newton established a working relationship with [inaudible] when he went to China. And so for us, there has always been a means and a method for which we tried to internationalize our struggle and take it out of basically the jurisdiction of the US to codify and/or limit and prohibit to what degree were able to fight back to resist a White supremacy and capitalist imperialism.

Mansa Musa:

All right, lets go right here then, on that right there. All right. So we recognize the progression and we recognize the historical significance and the relationship. But lets look at this here, it says it is a consensus worldwide that the United Nations Because thats where, when we talking about internationalizing, we talking about going to an institutional body to get some type of mandate to come out to say that what the United States is doing is inhuman.

So the mechanism that weve been talking about is the United Nations, but its the public consensus, ineffective as a body, but mainly when it comes to addressing complaints against United States and human rights. Case in point, going back to your point, Paul Robeson, they took a petition to the UN in 51, we charged genocide documenting the lynching of Black people and poor people in this country. Then you reference Malcolm X, and as you noted, we made it, we took it in terms of the strategy that you outlined, took it in and put political prisoners and prisoners of war in that space.

But what is it about this body? I understand international context, but what is it about the United Nations that gives you some type of solace that this is a good place to put attention in? When you look at the Palestinian situation, you look at, they allow United States to bomb our Iraq, both under false narrative of trying to get [inaudible] uranium, they killed [inaudible]. So we know that when it comes to United Nations, that its really the United States foot-stool for lack of better terminology. So educate our audience on why this particular body under that overview that I just outlined.

Jalil Muntaqim:

Very good. Im glad you raised that question because there are some contradictions in regards to our movement trying to have the United Nations to support us in the broader scale of which it exists. I think its important to understand that the United Nations, in terms of international law, its a body of international law. And as much as there are held together by individuals, nation, state individuals and organizations who may be coattailed to the United States because of the money that United States put into the United Nations, it diminishes our capacity to influence the processes.

But that doesnt mean that we not should try to influence the process. Ultimately what it does is we are by presenting our struggle and our issues to the United Nations, it goes to the people as well. Those individuals will bring those issues to the people. And thats what we really want to address. We really want to address the people of the world by regard to our struggle. And so this is a body from which we can do so, at least raise the issues, our concerns, our struggle to that body. And so that it can be reached at a broader branch of people. Now weve had comments go to Geneva, weve had petitions submitted to Geneva on the issues of our struggle.

And we need to continue to do so because it is a body of laws, international law. We are trying to make the United States adhere to the international law, for instance genocide. In 2018 I proposed that we bring the International Jury to the United States and we held an International Tribunal. And the International Tribunal on October 25th, 2021, they found the United States guilty of five charges. This is an esteemed body of international jurors, some of them have working relationships with the United Nations, and they are now promoting their verdict of October 25th, 2021 stated that the United States is guilty of five charges that we brought to them.

Five charges of mass incarceration, police terror and murder of our people, environmental racism, health inequities, and also the exists of political prisoners. The United States was found guilty by an esteemed body of international jurors on the reality of that they have violated international law as it pertained to those five particular issues. And so for us, we are using what mechanism is available to us. If we could create another mechanism for which we can build our international relationship with other folks and people, then we would do so. But thats the only mechanism thats working at this point in time. As you stated, Paul Robeson in December 17th, 1951, about two months after I was born, had brought the issues of genocide to the United Nations.

As you well know, the FBI hindered hindered that process. They would refuse to allow Paul Robeson to leave the country. And although William Patterson was able to go over to Geneva and present the petition, they tried to prevent him from coming back to the United States. And so for us its always a means, based upon the instructions of El-Haj Malik Shabazz, Malcolm X, to find the ways that we can reach our people on the international platform. When I say our people, Im talking about the progressives on the international platform. Let them know what is actually going on here in the United States amongst Black people, Brown people, Indigenous people in this country. It is a mechanism, its not the end results, it is a method for which we can bring our struggles into the international community.

Mansa Musa:

And that bring me to my next question. Because like you say, its a real effective strategy. You have got the international body of people thats directly related to the UN in some shape, form, or fashion to come-

Jalil Muntaqim:

Which are supporting our movement now.

Mansa Musa:

To come and review the indictment that we brought about genocide. And you had them review the indictment, and as a result of reviewing the indictment, they came out with the International Tribunal on human rights abuse against Black and Brown, Indigenous people. How are you taking that finding? Because that finding in and of itself, we know dont have the force of law. Its a nice document and its a nice support mechanism.

How do you plan on taking that document and moving the narrative forward to try to start peeling off more support from countries in terms of recognizing that the United States is practicing genocide against us. How do you plan on taking that document? Because as you said, if that same body wouldve been the voting body of the general assembly in the UN, then United States would be thus duly charged based on that. So how do you plan on-

Jalil Muntaqim:

Lets look at that on a couple levels. First level is here, United States is a treaty member of the Genocide Convention of 1948. United States has on its books, in its federal books, 18 USC 1091, which simply mimics or copies the genocidal doctrine of 1948. But we know that the United States will not charge itself with genocide, although theyre in violation of their own laws. So what were going to do, what we intended to do is build our base so that we can file a legal petition in the federal courts charging the United States having violated their own rules or regulations and according to international law.

And so in that instance, well be able to educate greater people both nationally and internationally of the contradiction that we have with the United States in regards to their Adherent to this false philosophy, aberrant philosophy of White supremacy, that ensures that other people of color are inferior to White people. And so when we understand that dynamic, we are raised in peoples consciousness, using international law as well as national dynamics where we can engage them by building our base of support. We also are building toward what we call peoples assemblies. Were building a peoples assemblies based upon what we call a Peoples Senate.

And we would have ambassadors who would travel throughout the world and raise our questions, our issues in those particular bodies. We have been over in the Caribbean, we have been the areas of Africa. I went to Greece last year to the International Symposium of Political Prisoners in Greece, African Greece. And I told them at my presentation that you will not be free, the international community will not be free until Black people were free in this country. And so in this way were making the connections with the international community based upon the idea and goals and objectives based upon the decision, the verdict of the International Jury finding the United States guilty of genocides.

And so with that understanding, based upon their own violation of their own laws, we can do two things. One, bring them to court, raise it on a national level and continue to send out our ambassadors around the world and speak on these issues, raise these questions. Weve been to South Africa, weve been to Ghana, weve been to Barbados, weve been to Greece. I got some people once to, theyre thinking about having me go tour parts of Europe and also Latin America. And so this is how we built out our struggle and join the progressive communities around the world who has been engaging, fighting against US imperialism and White supremacy throughout the world.

Mansa Musa:

And now, I like that connection because as our audience would need to be made aware of, when we talk about international struggle, weve been able to make the connection in terms of United States own laws and that at some point in time a forum going to have to be held about that. And they going to have to address that at some point in time in the court of law in the United States, which gives them a lot more People got a local mentality and a national mentality, be able to put them in a space where they comfortable with recognizing that, We are affected by this because we can see it right here, right now.

As opposed to trying to get them to take a broader perspective and say, like Malcolm say, We all in the same boat. All right, we talk about this here, Jalil. Lastly, so you mobilized the necessary support and you get the necessary results in terms of the United Nation, the courts. So what is the relief that we are asking for? What are we looking to get in return? Because I think most people want to know, are we just rabble-rousing or do we have actually got a strategy of what we want in return and what we going to do with our return?

Jalil Muntaqim:

Okay, well lets look at this a little bit more deliberately. We know that the United States have been found guilty of genocide. We know theyve been engaged in the process of genocides for the last 400 years. We know that the system of White supremacy is not going to just disappear. So it is our duty to divorce ourselves from a system thats engaging in genocides. We have to ensure that we are suffering no more harm. The trauma that we have suffered in the last 400 years is indelible. It has been internalized for the most part. And so we have to do a whole new reeducation, reprocessing of our consciousness.

And that means that we have to decolonize ourselves, when I say decolonize our mentality and our thinking in terms of who we are as a people in this country. And thats another issue that we have to address. Are we in fact a colonized nation, a colonized people? And if we are, then we need to figure out some ways how to manage that idea that we need to divorce ourself from the conditions of colonization. So that means that we need to move towards independence. Im saying this here. At the minimum, we divorce ourself from a system that has been engaging in genocide. We have to remove ourselves from harm. Thats what Im saying, because they been killing us for the last 400 years.

Mansa Musa:

And continue to do it.

Jalil Muntaqim:

And continue to do so. When they just shot this kid the other day, this young man the other day, shot him 60 times. They shot at him a hundred times and shot him 60 times. How many bullets does it take to kill one man? That was not just a message to this one guy or this one family, it was a message to everyone, of police terror. Thats the reason why they found guilty of genocide, by the way that theyve been murdered us by police terror. You see what Im saying? Mass incarceration is another issue. Mass incarceration, what they found guilty of by the international jurors of mass incarceration, thats genocide.

So we got to fight against this mass incarceration. One way to fight against it is to end penal slavery by the 13th Forward. By ending penal slavery, we take the incentive out of mass incarceration. That means they cannot profit off our labor. Our people dont understand that slavery was never totally abolished in the country, we have what we call penal slavery. They just [inaudible 00:21:26] to the United States Constitution. So thats another area where we are fighting back. Other, environmental racism. We know what happened in Flint, Michigan. Or Mississippi. Why is it that our people Health inequities is another area which we have found ourselves confronting the issues of genocide, which we have found guilty of.

Why is it that White people live twice as long as Black people in this country? Where does that come from? Why is it that it has been stated that Black man is an endangered species in this country? Where does that come from? It comes from the idea of White supremacy and trying to maintain a system from which we, Black people, Brown people, Indigenous people maintain inferiority to White superiority. Which again, I say is an average philosophy, its an average psychological And in my understanding, its a mental disorder. And White superiority is a mental disorder. And I say that based upon what the DMS-IV book says, the diagnostic book says.

Mansa Musa:

Thats right. Thats their book.

Jalil Muntaqim:

The psychological diagnostic book states that superiority complex is in fact a complex, it is a psychological disorder. And White supremacy is a derivative of the superiority complex where they feel their superiority. So these people are crazy. So we got to remove ourselves from these people because they have been harming us for the last 400 years.

Mansa Musa:

I gotcha.

Jalil Muntaqim:

So for building this outward, both on the national, international level, is extremely important. This is the reason why after the verdict by the international jurors finding the United States guilty on those five charges, we decided it is necessary for us to build what we call a Peoples Senate.

Mansa Musa:

Talk about that.

Jalil Muntaqim:

We got to create alternatives to the existing reality of our existence here in the United States. And so what were doing now, knowing that the United States functions as a corporation in behalf of other corporations, the law says Not what Jalil says, the law says, the Supreme Court has stated in, I think Citizens Action, but they determined that corporations are people. So we also know that the United States is in fact a corporation, based upon 28 USC 3002 Section 15A-

Mansa Musa:

Commercial code?

Jalil Muntaqim:

Yeah, commercial code. And it informs that the United States is in fact a federal corporation. And so when they say our people, For the people by the people, theyre not talking about sentient human beings, theyre talking about corporations. They function in behalf of corporations, not for human beings. And so when we decided that its necessary for what to build what we call a Peoples Senate to divorce ourself from a system thats not working in our best interest and began to create alternative systems, alternative modes of operation, alternative ways of where we can fulfill our prosperity, our goals, our ambitions, our livelihood outside of the dictates of the system that has been engaging in genocides against us.

And so the Peoples Senate is important. So were going to have Peoples Senates across the country. Were going to build peoples assemblies across the country, and were going to establish the financial and economic basis for which we can be able to strive, utilizing the resources that we have available to us in any cities and states across the country. And this process will begin to ensure that our struggle moving forward is safeguarded because we have created a condition for which we have a body of people who are engaged in struggle against a system that has been involved with genocides against us.

Not only that, but were also moving towards national liberation independence. And this is a hard one for people to chew on. We know that there are sovereign nations in this country. The Native Americans, the indigenous people in this country for the most part are sovereign nation. How come we arent? Thats a question I need to ask. If they can be a sovereign nation, how come we arent? If we look at the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution as an example, we realized that we never had an opportunity when they promulgated the 13th Amendment in 1865. We never had the opportunity to do three things.

One, to decide whether we want to stay in the United States, decide whether we want to go to Africa or return back to Africa, or decide we want to create our own homeland, what is called a plebiscite vote. The part of our struggle is to ensure that we have a plebiscite vote, make determination what we want. So the Fourth Amendment imposed the civilization on the 3 million to 5 million African people who were emancipated in 1865. And so for us, its always made a question of who are we in terms of our nationhood, that has not been established by us for us.

And so that is another part of this process of separating ourself, divorcing ourself from a system thats been engaged in genocides against us for the last 400 years. Now that we have law established in terms of international protocols by an esteemed body of international jurors have determined the United States has been engaged in this process of genocides against us. That informs us that we need to separate ourself and divorce ourself from a system thats doing us harm, has been doing us harm for the last 400 years. And so thats part of the process.

Mansa Musa:

So how can we get in touch with you and how can our viewers get in touch with the Spirit of Mandela?

Jalil Muntaqim:

Very good question. Go to spiritofmandela.org and tap over to the Peoples Senate, or go to Peoples Senate, spiritofmandela.org and youll find all the information you need to find to be involved with this process. We have what we call in the Spirit of Mandela, Im raise this up so you can see it. Youll find this particular document right here, for the Spirit of Mandela Explanation and Recruitment manual. And this is what we are organizing for.

Now, when we first initiated this campaign naturally in terms of our political prisoners, we was moving under the United Nations Spirit of Mandela Rule, which is the basic standards for the treatment of prisoners, which they turned into the Mandela rule. And so were using that idea of the Mandela rule, thats why we came with this name, Mandela Rule, to ensure our people on the inside of these penal slave institutions are granted the same rights that are supposed to be granted to anyone who have been incarcerated or who have been imprisoned. Based upon the Mandela rules, based upon the United States standard treatment of prisoners, which is now the Mandela rule.

And so thats one of the areas that were dealing with. But more importantly, we want to end penal slavery in the United States. When we end penal slavery, we end the school to prison pipeline, we end the issues of mass incarceration. We end, for the most part, targeting our community for mass incarceration. And so thats one of the ideas of building a Peoples Senate and raising this to peoples consciousness and understanding to what degree we have to resist. So yeah, thats what were doing.

Mansa Musa:

Okay, hey, thank you.

Jalil Muntaqim:

Spirit of Mandela.

Mansa Musa:

Spirtofmandela.org.

Jalil Muntaqim:

.org/peoples-senate. Thats what people need to go to.

Read more:
Jalil Muntaqim: The time to end prison slavery is now - The Real News Network

Until recently, New York courts have seldom utilized race as a factor when determining whether law enforcement officers have violated an individuals rights under the Fourth Amendment. This might seem counterintuitive considering that the Fourth Amendment is primarily concerned with protecting individual privacy against arbitrary intrusion by the government. This article will examine, however, how courts are considering race as a factor in a Fourth Amendment analysis, and how defendants are beginning to raise this issue in suppression motions.

In the past, other than a generic prohibition against discriminatory law enforcement procedures, race-based analyses at the appellate level were occasionally found only in concurring or dissenting opinions. For example, Justice Green, dissenting in People v. Hicks, 116 A.D.2d 150 (4th Dept 1986), opined that a fair reading of this record reveals that the defendant was stopped solely because he is Black. In People v. Price, 186 A.D.3d 903 (3d Dept 2020), Justice Lynch questioned whether a traffic stop was racially motivated. In a concurring opinion he noted that, although the outcome in this particular case will not change, we would not be remiss in not taking this opportunity to emphasize that bias, racial or otherwise, will not be allowed to legitimize the unconstitutional intrusion upon any citizens freedom.

More:
Race and the Fourth Amendment: Defendants Raise Issue in ... - Law.com

The Third Amendment has minimal significance in modern times. Nonetheless, it clearly has implications and should be historically considered.

Paul G. Summers| Guest Columnist

This day in history: Congress adopts the stars and stripes

On June 14, 1777, the basic design for the American flag was adopted at the Continental Congress during the American Revolution.

Associated Press, Associated Press

Editor's note:This is a regular feature on issues related to the Constitution and civicswritten by Paul G. Summers,retired judge and state attorney general.

The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of America. Amendments are part of the Constitution. The first 10 Amendments, or Bill of Rights, were submitted to the state legislatures in September 1789. The Bill of Rights was ratified in December 1791.

Amendment Three to the United States Constitution restricts the quartering of soldiers in peoples houses without the consent of the owner. This applies during peacetime. Congress can prescribe by law the manner in which soldiers may be quartered during wartime.

Amendment III: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

British Parliament once enacted what was labeled the Quartering Acts. American colonies were required to pay the costs of British soldiers who served in the colonies. If barracks did not have sufficient space or room, the colonists must lodge troops in livery stables, inns, and similar places.

The Quartering Act of 1774 provided that colonists might have to house soldiers wherever necessary, including private houses. This mandate of quartering soldiers was one of the grievances provided in the Declaration of Independence of 1776.

Hear more Tennessee Voices: Get the weekly opinion newsletter for insightful and thought provoking columns.

Sign up for Latino Tennessee Voices newsletter:Read compelling stories for and with the Latino community in Tennessee.

Sign up for Black Tennessee Voices newsletter:Read compelling columns by Black writers from across Tennessee.

The Third Amendment has minimal significance in modern times. Nonetheless, it clearly has implications and should be historically considered.

It is arguable that few, if any, Supreme Court decisions specifically address the issue. This amendment establishes an individuals right to domestic privacy.

The people are protected against government intrusion in their homes and places in peacetime and wartime, with conditions. Be mindful that these are arguments, not Court decisions. The quartering of soldiers was a complaint or grievance of colonists which predicated our Declaration of Independence against Great Britain. It was an issue of great importance to colonists in 1776.

The Constitution and Amendments are the supreme law of the land. Our Constitution supersedes states constitutions and statutes, even federal statutes and acts. The judicial branch, headed by the U. S. Supreme Court, is the independent branch of our federal government. Judges decide controversies on the rule of law. They act as checks and balances on abuse of power by any of the branches, whether by act or action. They interpret what our Constitution says. The Supreme Courts interpretation in a case or controversy is final.

We shall continue in a future article with the Fourth Amendment. Studying the Constitution is time well spent.

Paul G. Summers is a lawyer. He is a former appellate and senior judge, district attorney general, and the Attorney General of Tennessee. Raised in Fayette County, Judge Summers resides in Holladay and Nashville.

Read the original:
Why Founding Fathers passed the Third Amendment to the ... - Tennessean

Dr Naazir Mahmood

IN 2023, Pakistan is marking 50 years of the 1973 Constitution that has experienced many mutilations at the hands of both civil and military rulers. Having remained in abeyance a couple of times the constitution has survived all the vagaries in the past half century. Here we discuss some of the Amendments that have had an impact on the Constitutional and judicial history of Pakistan. It is interesting to note that the first seven amendments that Prime Minister Z A Bhutto introduced from 1974 to 1977 paved the way for further mutilations of the constitutions in the years to come.

Just to cite one example, the ban on the National Awami Party (NAP) in 1975 the Bhutto government had planned much earlier by introducing certain Constitutional amendments to pave the way for the dissolution of NAP. The First and the Second Amendments to the 1973 Constitution came about in 1974. The First Amendment recognized Bangladesh, and the Second declared Ahmadies as non-Muslims. By amending Article 1 of the Constitution in April 1974, the parliament of the rump Pakistan deleted any mention to the erstwhile eastern wing of the country East Pakistan. February 1975 was an eventful month; the National Assembly passed a bill for terrorism trials by special courts. The situation became clear on February 8 when senior PPP leader Hayat Mohammad Khan Sherpao who was also a former governor of the NWFP (now KP) lost his life in an attack in Peshawar and within a week the government banned NAP and declared it as an illegal party.

The Bhutto government introduced the Third Amendment to the Constitution curtailing the right of the detainees, and extending the powers of the detaining authorities. The new chief justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan was Justice Yaqoob Ali who took his oath of office on 1 Nov 1975, and the same month the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution curtailed the jurisdiction of courts. This amendment also limited the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 199 in cases of preventive detentions. Now the courts could not grant bail to a person, or prohibit such detention.

In September 1976, the Bhutto government passed the Fifth Constitutional Amendment widening the scope of restrictions on courts. The period of separation of judiciary from the executive increased from three to five years. Maximum tenure of the chief justices of the Supreme Court and high courts also became fixed as five and four years respectively. Now high courts could not issue any order subject to the article 175 (2) and 199 of the constitution. The government could transfer the judges of the high courts without their consent to another high court, and that too without giving any reason.

The Bhutto government introduced its penultimate amendment in Dec 1976: the Sixth Amendment during the last session before the general elections. The main content of the amendment was about extension in the tenure of chief justices of the Supreme Court and High Courts beyond the retirement age of 65 and 62 respectively. This amendment specifically gave a chance to Chief Justice Yaqoob Ali to continue after his superannuation in mid-1977, as he had not completed his term in office for five years. Now through the sixth amendment, chief justices of the Supreme Court and high court could complete five and four years of tenure even if they got past the superannuation age of 65 and 62 respectively.

Z A Bhutto introduced the Seventh Amendment in May 1977. It had a provision for a referendum because Bhutto did not want any reelection after the opposition rejected the results of March 1977 general elections. He wanted to hold a referendum so that people could once again demonstrate confidence in him.He could neither hold a referendum nor a reelection as the army chief General Zia toppled him in a bloodless coup on July 5, 1977 and suspended the Constitution. In March 1985, General Zia issued Presidential Order (PO 14 of 1985) as the Revival of the Constitution Order (RCO 1985) with which he made a large number of amendments in the Constitution.

This would later provide the backbone to the Eight Constitutional Amendment. The dictator appointed M K Junejo as the prime minister of Pakistan who received a vote of confidence in the last week of March 1985. Gen Zia reportedly threatened that if the bill were not to go through, he would consider the possibility of dissolving the National Assembly and send everything packing once again. The MNAs did not want to face that eventuality at the hand of the general. By October, the Eight Amendment was ready for approval in the Constitution which incorporated it in November 1985.

The Ninth Amendment Bill got stuck with a Select Committee of the National Assembly and it could not progress to change the constitution. The National Assembly passed the 10th Constitutional Amendment in March 1987 to reduce the duration of the interval between sessions of the National Assembly and the Senate from 160 days to 130 days. In the third year of his premiership, M K Junejo became increasingly assertive, much to the chagrin of General Zia who dismissed him in May 1988. Three month later Gen Zia died in a plane crash in August 1988.

By the end of 1988, Benazir Bhutto aged 35 had become the youngest prime minister in the countrys history and the first leader in the Muslim world. The opposition members in the Senate of Pakistan presented the 11th Constitutional Amendment in 1989 to restore the seats of women in the National Assembly to 20. The PPP government should have approved of it but perhaps it did not want the opposition to get the credit so Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto gave an assurance that the PPP government would introduce the same bill on its own.

The first Nawaz Sharif government introduced the 12th Constitutional Amendment in July 1991 to establish Speedy Courts for the trial of dreadful offences for three years. The Amendment also raised the salaries of the judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts. In April 1997, the second Nawaz Sharif government moved and passed in minutes the 13th Constitutional Amendment by relaxing the usual rules to pass such amendments. This amendment undid the powers of the president including 58-2 (b) but there were no changes related to the religious contents of the Eight Amendment.

It is wrong to assume that the 13th Amendment actually removed the Eight Amendment, it simply reduced the power of the president of Pakistan and transferred them to the prime minister.It stripped the president of Pakistan of his power to dissolve the National Assembly and call for new elections or to dismiss the prime minister. Just three months after the 13th amendment, in July 1997 the second Nawaz-Sharif government introduced the 14th Amendment which subjected members of parliament to fairly strict party discipline by giving party leaders unlimited authority to dismiss legislators who failed to vote per the direction of the party head.

In 1998, the Nawaz Sharif government introduced the 15th Amendment bill to the Constitution of Pakistan which got through the National Assembly in August but when it moved to the Senate it could not get approval before the coup of General Musharraf. The proposed 15th amendment included the addition of a new article 2B in the Constitution and an amendment to the Article 239. It sought to impose Sharia Law as supreme law in Pakistan in accordance with the Objectives Resolution of Pakistan that Gen Zia had incorporated into the main constitution.

The 16th Amendment passed in August 1999, increased the validity of quota system from 20 to 40 years. Ultimately, the 13th and the 14th amendments could not save the prime minister when he tried to remove the Army Chief General Pervez Musharraf in Oct 1999. To summarize, during the first 26 years of the Constitution of Pakistan there were in all 13 approved amendments; and three proposed amendments that could not pass through both houses. Of the 13 amendments passed, seven were in the first five years under the Z A Bhutto government from 1972 to 1977.

The Eight amendment that Gen Zia introduced and imposed, was the most devastating that severely hampered the progress of democracy in the country and devoured four elected national assemblies. Benazir Bhutto during her two governments that lasted for less than five years combined did not pass any amendment. Whereas Nawaz Sharif managed to pass the 12th Amendment during his first government and the 13th, 14th, and 16th amendments during the second government from 1997 to 1999.

[emailprotected] @NaazirMahmood

Excerpt from:
The journey of the Constitution - Pakistan Observer

Last month, the City of McMinnville was dropped as a defendant in a federal civil rights lawsuit. The suit alleged excessive force, false arrest and unreasonable seizure associated with the incident and requested $500,000 from Colwell and $500,000 from McMinnville. The suit arose from an incident involving former McMinnville Police Officer Justin Colwell. Colwell, who currently works at the Warren County Sheriff's Department, is alleged to have handcuffed a Black man in his own yard while responding to a call regarding a woman suspected to be involved in a domestic incident.

In March, an unopposed motion by plaintiff David J. Martin dismissed the City of McMinnville from the suit. Bailey Barnes and Michael Galligan are representing Martin with Cassandra Crane representing Officer Colwell. Daniel Rader, IV represented the City of McMinnville until it was removed from the suit last month in an unopposed motion. Rader said the city did not settle and was voluntarily dropped from the suit. The $1 million lawsuit was initially filed Feb. 23, 2022.

The suit references the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 which it says serves a critical, necessary purpose in protecting the essential interests and basic humanity of citizens who have been deprived of constitutional or statutory rights by those acting under color of state law.

Martins suit looks to the judicial system as is his right under the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. 1983, to shield him from abuse when the state is unwilling or unable to do so on its own."

In a filing from April 11, 2022, the City of McMinnville took offense to the mention of the KKK saying it was solely to create a salacious perception by the public at large or within the news media, and not for any legitimate legal purpose.

Martin alleges Officer Colwell used excessive force and violated his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure when Martin was allegedly painfully and tightly handcuffed in the back of a squad car on his own property. Colwell claims he was operating on reasonable suspicion (a lower bar to prove than probable cause) when he made a Terry stop, detaining Martin because he refused to respond to basic questions regarding the domestic incident Colwell was called to the area for.

In Colwells response to the suit he said he felt Martin had seemingly implicated he was involved by asserting his Fifth Amendment right. McMinnvilles position was the city is not vicariously responsible for the conduct of Officer Colwell.

Colwells defense is he was conducting a Terry stop but may not have met the conditions for a lawful one. In Terry v. Ohio it was ruled that if an officer believes the suspect is armed based on experience and knowledge they may conduct a limited search for weapons. In Floyd v. The City of New York, courts held that a Terry stop was not constitutional as it was being used as a pretext for racial profiling. Only a non-invasive examination of the exterior clothing layer is considered lawful even in jurisdictions, like Tennessee, where a Terry stop is not considered an illegal stop-and-frisk.

Martin was in his own yard, shirtless and wearing flip flops according to Galligan, which may make Colwells defense hard to prove. Colwells defense hinges on being able to prove reasonable suspicion that Martin was armed and dangerous and/or in commission of a crime or that hes shielded by qualified immunity due to his position as a law enforcement officer.

Martin, who is in his 60s, made a complaint to the McMinnville Police Department about pain in his ankle from a prior injury and pain from allegedly being aggressively handcuffed, causing his hands to swell in pain.

McMinnville Police Department conducted an internal affairs investigation and determined Colwell followed departmental protocols. This is despite the fact that Colwell had been warned about not wearing a body-worn camera and not using a dashcam. A recurring disciplinary issue that is uncontested is that Colwell allegedly had a habit of not following department policy regarding dashcam and body-worn cameras. No bodycam or dashcam footage of the interaction with Martin is available as a result of this lapse.

Sgt. Joseph Butler was instructed to inform Colwell, who admitted he often didnt wear a body-worn camera, to begin doing so. The suit alleges that Sgt. Justin Shrum ordered Butler to take a body camera to Colwell. McMinnville claimed the reason Colwell still didnt have a bodycam or dashcam operating was because of a miscommunication and due to an equipment shortage. The bodycam should have been received by Colwell about a month before the incident with Martin.

In its response, McMinnville did not deny the prior incident described but argued the statute of limitations had passed, disparaging the claim as an attempt to try an entirely separate, distinct and unrelated incident.

Colwell admitted taking off his badge during a previous incident which resulted in a write-up: I will not let suspects or the public get under my skin. The previous incident occurred in June 2020. Colwell responded to a call regarding a suspect who had recently received major back surgery and had a rod put in their back. The suit alleges the rod in the suspects back resulted in them needing a walker for mobility which made performing a field sobriety test difficult. Colwell searched the suspect and found a pill in their pocket, asked them to have a seat in the squad car and, when they didnt get in the back seat quickly enough due to their mobility issues, Colwell allegedly used force to push the suspect into the back seat.

Things continued to verbally escalate with the suspect at one point calling Colwell fat which sparked an expletive-laden response from Colwell who allegedly threatened to kill the suspect. Colwell admits to having taken his badge off during the exchange. McMinnville Police Department did not require Colwell to attend any sort of de-escalation or anger management classes.

The trial itself is set for Oct. 17, 2023 at 10 a.m. and is expected to take three to four days to complete. Colwells lawyer, Crane, responded to a request for comment: Mr. Colwell vehemently denies any wrongdoing in this case. I am unable to comment further on pending litigation.

See the rest here:
Former MPD officer sued - McMinnville - Southern Standard