As previously discussed on this blog, a woman in Uttar Pradesh was violated by her father-in-law and then ordered to marry him via an outrageous fatwa, much to the horror of sentient beings everywhere. Unfortunately, this story doesn’t have a great ending:

“Me and my husband are willing to abide by the fatwa if the Darul Uloom Muftis want us to,” Imrana said.

Mufti Habibur Rehman of Darul Uloom Deoband said in a fatwa on Sunday that the Imrana’s life with her husband Noor Ilahi has become untenable as per Islamic law after the alleged rape on June 3.

Reacting to the ruling, Imrana, who has been staying with her parents at Kukra village, on Sunday said she has full faith in the Shariyat. Noor Ilahi also said he would take steps as per the fatwa.

You do remember why she was ordered to go home, right? To purify her. Tell me, dear readers, how do you “take steps” so that your wife transitions to the role of stepmother? I’d think about it myself, but I can’t stop shaking my head and I’ve gone dizzy.

Despite the disapproval of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board and the work of women activists, it looks like the local panchayat will win. The victim’s own brothers are fine with the fatwa. While at the protest at the Pakistani Embassy last week, I heard activists discussing how Mukhtaran Mai’s mother supported her as she commenced her quest for justice. I wish Imrana’s family had reacted similarly. If she was brave enough to report this assault to the authorities in the first place, I can’t help but think that she has a flicker of defiance within her. If only someone close to her could fan that tiny flame…

It saddens me to the point of migraine that here’s where the story ends. Though the magistrate who heard this case denied the alleged rapist/father-in-law’s bail, to me, even if he’s convicted of the crime he’s been accused of, it sounds like his daughter-in-law and future wife will never win. Continue reading →

Last year I blogged about the Justice Department’s abuse of material witness statutes following 9/11. For over a year HRW lawyer Anjana Malhotra has been flying around the country interviewing those thrown into jail indefinitely as “material witnesses,” to terrorist activities. Now a full report [Witness to Abuse: Human Rights Abuses under the Material Witness Law since September 11] has just been released on this practice. Newsweek reports:

Since 9/11, the Justice Department has used a little-known legal tactic to secretly lock up at least 70 terror suspects—almost all of them Muslim men—and hold them without charges as “material witnesses” to crimes, in some cases for months. A report to be released this week by two civil-liberties groups finds nearly 90 percent of these suspects were never linked to any terrorism acts, resulting in prosecutors and FBI agents issuing at least 13 apologies for wrongful arrest.

The report cites instances in which agents used what it calls “flimsy” evidence to make arrests. A 68-year-old Virginia doctor named Tajammul Bhatti was arrested by the FBI in June 2002 after neighbors found magazines about flying and a phone number of a Pakistani nuclear scientist in his apartment. It turned out he had served in the U.S. Air Force National Guard and the Pakistani scientist was a childhood friend. Another “tip” led to the arrest of eight restaurant workers in Evansville, Ind., who were shackled and taken to a detention facility in Chicago. The FBI later apologized—but never disclosed the basis for their detention. “The law was never designed to be used this way,” says Anjana Malhotra, the prime author of the report.

The New York Times has more:

The new study sought to catalogue and quantify the treatment of the witnesses, and it found that a third of the 70 material witnesses it identified were jailed for at least two months. The study found that there might well have been more than 70 material witnesses, but secrecy provisions prevented a definitive tally. Of the 70 who were positively identified, 42 were released without any charges being filed, 20 were charged with non-terrorist offenses like bank or credit card fraud, four were convicted of supporting terrorism, and three others are awaiting trial on terrorism charges. More than a third were ultimately deported. None are still known to be held as witnesses.

Few of the material witnesses made national headlines. Among the notable exceptions were Zacarias Moussaoui, recently convicted of terrorism in connection with the Sept. 11 attacks; Jose Padilla, who was later declared an enemy combatant after authorities accused him of plotting to build a “dirty bomb;” and Brandon Mayfield, a Muslim lawyer in Portland who was jailed in connection with the 2004 Madrid train bombings after the F.B.I. mistakenly matched a fingerprint of his to the scene.

NPR features this on Monday as well.

[disclosure: Malhotra is a friend] Continue reading →