What kind
of country is
this?
Afghan
high court
decides election
 The
Afghan Supreme
Court shown here delivering their controversial opinion. By
Geoffrey Davson, Foreign Editor with Scott V. Sandiford, Legal
Correspondent
KABUL,
Afghanistan – In a shocking development sure to have grave implications
for the future of democracy and the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan, the
Afghan Supreme Court ruled yesterday by a five to four vote to certify
the re-election of President Hahmdeman [Surely, Hahmid? –
Ed.] Karzai. The
unexpected
decision has the effect of stopping the planned runoff election dead in
its tracks. According to Afghani constitutional law and goat
skinning specialists, in that primitive land, decisions of the Afghani
Supreme Court are final, nonreviewable, and not subject to modification
by ordinary democratic processes. Although
the decision was cloaked in obscure legal language, court watchers note
that the five justices who certified Karzai as the victor all belonged
to his tribe, the Pashtuns, while the four dissenters all belonged to
the tribe of his rival, the Pullyous. The
majority
decision was written by Justice al-Scali, a Pashtun recently appointed
to the Court by President Karzai as a payoff for his loyal service as
the head of the Afghani Election and Opium Refining Commission. Al-Scali's
opinion cited the need for finality as the overriding concern
and derided the four dissenters as "whining baby goats who
ought to have
their throats cut." The
dissenting opinion, by
Justice Ahr-sout, criticized the majority's decision as "an
inappropriate
rush to judgment that will have a grave effect on the government's
effort to build credibility at home and abroad." He
predicted
that the "damage to the Court's credibility, if not its courthouse,
will last for generations." Al-Scali,
in a
footnote, said the dissenters sought to plunge the country into a
constitutional crisis that could be avoided only through timely
beheadings. The four dissenting Justices, taking the hint,
then
fled the country with their wives and camels in tow. Karzai's
opponent in the now-canceled runoff, Abdullah Abdullah Morrison
Morrison, accused the Supreme Court of "hijacking the election," and
threatened to lead his supporters in a massive wave of civil
disobedience directed at bringing down the increasingly frail Karzai
regime, whose legitimacy will now be further in doubt following the
Supreme Court's decision to short-circuit the election process. In
the meantime, the unexpected precipitate decision by the country's
highest court has left international observers and U.S. officials
wondering what
if anything can be done to prop up a regime sure to be perceived as
ruling
solely by brute force. "It is
entirely unacceptable
for the democratic process to be decapitated by the obviously biased
decision of five Pashtun cronies of the President," said UN Special
Representative and Nobel Peace Prize Winner Al Gore. Gore predicted
that the surprise decision to cancel the runoff could lead to the
collapse of the international coalition battling the increasingly
dangerous Taliban insurgency. Sources
close to Gore told the Spy
that the crudely political judgment of the Afghan Supreme Court might
cause foreign countries to wonder why they should be supporting one
undemocratic Afghan faction over any other. "The world may
well question
whether a country so primitive that its democracy could be dismantled
by a single judicial decree is worthy of the commitment of blood and
treasure made by NATO and the United States," the source said.
Great moments in Supreme Court
history (Today's subject: empathy)
Justice Scalia spent considerable effort
in trying to keep the argument on the constitutionality of the cross’s
display. He said the government had no obligation, just
because it put up a monument to one faith, to have other monuments on
the same site to other faiths. In fact, he said, the Mojave
cross was a commemoration of the service of soldiers of all faiths,
including Jews and Muslims. Scalia said it was “outrageous”
to suggest otherwise. –
SCOTUSblog.com, recounting oral argument in Salazar v. Buono on
October 7, 2009. We consider
the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff's argument to consist in the
assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the
colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by
reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored
race chooses to put that construction upon it. –
Mr. Justice Brown writing for the majority in Plessy v. Ferguson,
163 U.S. 537 (1896), upholding the constitutionality of state-mandated
racial segregation.
Although
diplomats at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul would only say they are still
"studying" the 40-goatskin-long decision and "trying to make sense out
of it," privately State Department and military officials are
apoplectic. Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton is
letting it be known that she finds the court's interference in the
controversial Afghan election process "inexplicable and intolerable."
The staff of Proconsul
Gen. Stanley
McChrystal said the commander was so upset about the decision that he
ran an additional hundred laps around his well-guarded private running
track. His aides worry that turning to the Afghan election
into a
"sick joke" could have a devastating effect on troop morale. As
one anonymous officer said: "How can we ask our brave troops to put
their lives on the line for a country whose leaders can be installed
and replaced at the whim of five political hacks dressed in judicial
pelts [Surely,
robes? – Ed.] ?" Despite
the international outcry over the obvious rigging of the election to
protect the favored candidate of the Pashtun tribe, one somewhat
enigmatic word of support was heard to emanate from deep within former
Vice
President Dick Cheney's Bunker of Torment. In a statement
provided to
his
PR representative Schlox News, Cheney said only: "Now we're
getting
somewhere."
| 
