The Tier III list

Pursuant to INA 212 (a) (3) (B)

B) Terrorist activities-

(i) IN GENERAL.-Any alien who-

(I) has engaged in a terrorist activity,

(II) a consular officer or the Attorney General knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, is engaged in or is likely to engage after entry in any terrorist activity (as defined in clause (iv)),

(III) has, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily harm, incited terrorist activity,

(IV) is a representative (as defined in clause (v)) of–

(aa) a foreign terrorist organization, as designated by the Secretary of State under section 219, or

(bb) a political, social or other similar group whose public endorsement of acts of terrorist activity the Secretary of State has determined undermines United States efforts to reduce or eliminate terrorist activities,

(V) is a member of a foreign terrorist organization, as designated by the Secretary under section 219, or is inadmissible. An alien who is an officer, official, representative, or spokesman of the Palestine Liberation Organization is considered, for purposes of this Act, to be engaged in a terrorist activity.

(VI) has used the alien’s position of prominence within any country to endorse or espouse terrorist activity, or to persuade others to support terrorist activity or a terrorist organization, in a way that the Secretary of State has determined undermines United States efforts to reduce or eliminate terrorist activities, or

(VII) is the spouse or child of an alien who is inadmissible under this section, if the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible occurred within the last 5 years,

(ii) EXCEPTION- Subclause (VII) of clause (i) does not apply to a spouse or child–

(I) who did not know or should not reasonably have known of the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible under this section; or

(II) whom the consular officer or Attorney General has reasonable grounds to believe has renounced the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible under this section.

(iii) TERRORIST ACTIVITY DEFINED.-As used in this Act, the term “terrorist activity” means any activity which is unlawful under the laws of the place where it is committed (or which, if it had been committed in the United States, would be unlawful under the laws of the United States or any State) and which involves any of the following:

(I) The highjacking or sabotage of
any conveyance (including an aircraft, vessel, or vehicle).

(II) The seizing or detaining, and
threatening to kill, injure, or continue to detain, another individual in order to compel a third person (including a governmental organization) to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the individual seized or detained.

(III) A violent attack upon an internationally protected person (as defined in section 1116(b)(4) of title 18, United States Code) or upon the liberty of such a person.

(IV) An assassination.

(V) The use of any-

(a) biological agent, chemical agent, or nuclear weapon or device, or

(b) explosive, firearm, or other weapon or dangerous device (other than for mere personal monetary gain), with intent to endanger, directly or indirectly, the safety of one or more individuals or to cause substantial damage to property.

(VI) A threat, attempt, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing.

(iv) ENGAGE IN TERRORIST ACTIVITY DEFINED- As used in this chapter, the term “engage in terrorist activity” means, in an individual capacity or as a member of an organization-

(I) to commit or to incite to commit, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily injury, a terrorist activity;

(II) to prepare or plan a terrorist activity;

(III) to gather information on potential targets for terrorist activity;

(IV) to solicit funds or other things of value for–

(aa) a terrorist activity;

(bb) a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(I) or (vi)(II); or

(cc) a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the solicitor can demonstrate that he did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the solicitation would further the organization’s terrorist activity;

(V) to solicit any individual–

(aa) to engage in conduct otherwise described in this clause;

(bb) for membership in a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(I) or (vi)(II); or

(cc) for membership in a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the solicitor can demonstrate that he did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the solicitation would further the organization’s terrorist activity; or

(VI) to commit an act that the actor knows, or reasonably should know, affords material support, including a safe house, transportation, communications, funds, transfer of funds or other material financial benefit, false documentation or identification, weapons (including chemical, biological, or radiological weapons), explosives, or training–

(aa) for the commission of a terrorist activity;

(bb) to any individual who the actor knows, or reasonably should know, has committed or plans to commit a terrorist activity;

(cc) to a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(I) or (vi)(II); or

(dd) to a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the actor can demonstrate that he did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the act would further the organization’s terrorist activity.

This clause shall not apply to any material support the alien afforded to an organization or individual that has committed terrorist activity, if the Secretary of State, after consultation with the Attorney General, or the Attorney General, after consultation with the Secretary of State, concludes in his sole unreviewable discretion, that this clause should not apply.

(v) REPRESENTATIVE DEFINED.-As used in this paragraph, the term “representative” includes an officer, official, or spokesman of an organization, and any person who directs, counsels, commands, or induces an organization or its members to engage in terrorist activity.

(vi) TERRORIST ORGANIZATION DEFINED- As used in clause (i)(VI) and clause (iv), the term ‘terrorist organization’ means an organization–

(I) designated under section 219;

(II) otherwise designated, upon publication in the Federal Register, by the Secretary of State in consultation with or upon the request of the Attorney General, as a terrorist organization, after finding that the organization engages in the activities described in subclause (I), (II), or (III) of clause (iv), or that the organization provides material support to further terrorist activity; or

(III) that is a group of two or more individuals, whether organized or not, which engages in the activities described in subclause (I), (II), or (III) of clause (iv).

Tier III group

USCIS has placed on hold the following categories of aliens for which exemptions are not yet available (and the only ground for referral or denial is a terrorist-related inadmissibility provision): (1) an alien associated with 1 of the 10 named groups benefitted by the CAA who would remain inadmissible despite the CAA’s “automatic relief” provision; (2) an alien who is inadmissible under the Act’s terrorism provision based on activity associated with a Tier III group not under duress; (3) an alien who is inadmissible under the terrorism-related provisions of the Act, other than material support, based on any activity or association with a Tier I, II, or III Group that was under duress; (4) a voluntary provider of medical care to any Tier I, II, or III organizations, to their members, or to individuals who have engaged in terrorist activity; and (5) an alien who is inadmissible as the spouse or child of aliens described above, whether or not the aliens have applied for an immigration benefit.

The Tier III list, comprises of 8 (or 10 groups?) groups per USCIS-Memo-Processing-of-Asylum-Division-Cases-Involving-Material-Support published on June 1, 2007. See: http://www.ansarilawfirm.com/docs/USCIS-Memo-Processing-of-Asylum-Division-Cases-Involving-Material-Support.pdf

CAA § 691(b), 121 Stat. at 2365. The 10 named groups that benefitted from the CAA’s “automatic relief” provision as well as from the Secretary’s June 2008 exercise of authority are: Karen National Union/Karen National Liberation Army (“KNU/KNLA”); Chin National Front/Chin National Army (“CNF/CNA”); Chin National League for Democracy (“CNLD”); Kayan New Land Party (“KNLP”); Arakan Liberation Party (“ALP”); Tibetan Mustangs; Cuban Alzados; Karenni National Progressive Party (“KNPP”); and groups affiliated with the Hmong and Montagnards. See also Matter of S-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 475 (BIA 2008). On July 1, 2008, Congress added the African National Congress to the previously named groups. See Pub. L. No. 110-257, 122 Stat. 2426 (2008).

See: http://www.usdoj.gov/eoir/vll/ILA-Newsleter/ILA%20Vol%202/vol2no12.pdf

Pub. L. No. 110-257, 122 Stat. 2426 (2008) is available at:
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/laws/past/110-second-session.txt

You may also want to see:
http://www.rcusa.org/uploads/pdfs/LIRS%20Q&As%20on%20terrorism-material%20support,%208-13-08.pdf

Here’s one more:
http://www.humanrightsfirst.info/pdf/08130-asy-new-amendmensts-ina.pdf

My finding: CPN-M does not make it to the Tier III organisation. It comes under TEL and FTO.

The following groups of concern have not been designated as Foreign Terrorist Organizations under 8 USC Section 1189, although many have been designated under other U.S. Government counterterrorism authorities.

Al-Badhr Mujahedin (al-Badr)
Al-Ittihad al-Islami (AIAI)
Alex Boncayao Brigade (ABB)
Anti-Imperialist Territorial Nuclei (NTA)
Army for the Liberation of Rwanda (ALIR)
Cambodian Freedom Fighters (CFF)
Communist Party of India (Maoist)
Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist)/United People’s Front

See: Page 47 at http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/65479.pdf

Individual aliens providing support to or associated with TEL-designated organizations may be found “inadmissable” to the U.S., i.e., such aliens may be prevented from entering the U.S. or, if already in U.S. territory, may in certain circumstances be deported. Examples of activity that may render an alien inadmissible as a result of an organization’s TEL designation include:

* membership in a TEL-designated organization;
* use of the alien’s position of prominence within any country to persuade others to support an organization on the TEL list;
* solicitation of funds or other things of value for an organization on the TEL list;
* solicitation of any individual for membership in an organization on the TEL list; and
* commission of an act that the alien knows, or reasonably should have known, affords material support, including a safe house, transportation, communications, funds, transfer of funds or other material for financial benefit, false documentation or identification, weapons (including chemical, biological, or radiological weapons), explosives, or training to an organization on the TEL list.

(It should be noted that individual aliens may also found inadmissible on the basis of other types of terrorist activity unrelated to TEL-designated organizations; see 8 U.S.C. §1182(a)(3)(B).)

See: http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/other/des/123086.htm

Releases > Terrorism Designations>Terrorist Exclusion List

Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism
December 29, 2004

Section 411 of the USA PATRIOT ACT of 2001 (8 U.S.C. § 1182) authorized the Secretary of State, in consultation with or upon the request of the Attorney General, to designate terrorist organizations for immigration purposes. This authority is known as the “Terrorist Exclusion List (TEL)” authority. A TEL designation bolsters homeland security efforts by facilitating the USG’s ability to exclude aliens associated with entities on the TEL from entering the United States.

Designation Criteria

An organization can be placed on the TEL if the Secretary of State finds that the organization:

* commits or incites to commit, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily injury, a terrorist activity;
* prepares or plans a terrorist activity;
* gathers information on potential targets for terrorist activity; or
* provides material support to further terrorist activity.

Under the statute, “terrorist activity” means any activity that is unlawful under U.S. law or the laws of the place where it was committed and involves: hijacking or sabotage of an aircraft, vessel, vehicle or other conveyance; hostage taking; a violent attack on an internationally protected person; assassination; or the use of any biological agent, chemical agent, nuclear weapon or device, or explosive, firearm, or other weapon or dangerous device (other than for mere personal monetary gain), with intent to endanger, directly or indirectly, the safety of one or more individuals or to cause substantial damage to property. The definition also captures any threat, attempt, or conspiracy to do any of these activities.

Designation Process

The Secretary of State is authorized to designate groups as TEL organizations in consultation with, or upon the request of the Attorney General. Once an organization of concern is identified, or a request is received from the Attorney General to designate a particular organization, the State Department works closely with the Department of Justice and the intelligence community to prepare a detailed “administrative record,” which is a compilation of information, typically including both classified and open sources information, demonstrating that the statutory criteria for designation have been satisfied. Once completed, the administrative record is sent to the Secretary of State who decides whether to designate the organization. Notices of designations are published in the Federal Register.

Effects of Designation

Legal Ramifications

Individual aliens providing support to or associated with TEL-designated organizations may be found “inadmissable” to the U.S., i.e., such aliens may be prevented from entering the U.S. or, if already in U.S. territory, may in certain circumstances be deported. Examples of activity that may render an alien inadmissible as a result of an organization’s TEL designation include:

* membership in a TEL-designated organization;
* use of the alien’s position of prominence within any country to persuade others to support an organization on the TEL list;
* solicitation of funds or other things of value for an organization on the TEL list;
* solicitation of any individual for membership in an organization on the TEL list; and
* commission of an act that the alien knows, or reasonably should have known, affords material support, including a safe house, transportation, communications, funds, transfer of funds or other material for financial benefit, false documentation or identification, weapons (including chemical, biological, or radiological weapons), explosives, or training to an organization on the TEL list.

(It should be noted that individual aliens may also found inadmissible on the basis of other types of terrorist activity unrelated to TEL-designated organizations; see 8 U.S.C. §1182(a)(3)(B).)

Other Effects

1. Deters donation or contributions to named organizations.
2. Heightens public awareness and knowledge of terrorist organizations.
3. Alerts other governments to U.S. concerns about organizations engaged in
terrorist activities.
4. Stigmatizes and isolates designated terrorist organizations.

Background

Secretary of State Colin Powell, in consultation with the Attorney General, designated the following organizations, thereby placing them on the Terrorist Exclusion List (TEL). Ten groups were added to the TEL on April 29, 2004.

Terrorist Exclusion List Designees (alphabetical listing)

* Afghan Support Committee (a.k.a. Ahya ul Turas; a.k.a. Jamiat Ayat-ur-Rhas al Islamia; a.k.a. Jamiat Ihya ul Turath al Islamia; a.k.a. Lajnat el Masa Eidatul Afghania)
* Al Taqwa Trade, Property and Industry Company Ltd. (f.k.a. Al Taqwa Trade, Property and Industry; f.k.a. Al Taqwa Trade, Property and Industry Establishment; f.k.a. Himmat Establishment; a.k.a. Waldenberg, AG)
* Al-Hamati Sweets Bakeries
* Al-Ittihad al-Islami (AIAI)
* Al-Manar
* Al-Ma’unah
* Al-Nur Honey Center
* Al-Rashid Trust
* Al-Shifa Honey Press for Industry and Commerce
* Al-Wafa al-Igatha al-Islamia (a.k.a. Wafa Humanitarian Organization; a.k.a. Al Wafa; a.k.a. Al Wafa Organization)
* Alex Boncayao Brigade (ABB)
* Anarchist Faction for Overthrow
* Army for the Liberation of Rwanda (ALIR) (a.k.a. Interahamwe, Former Armed Forces (EX-FAR))
* Asbat al-Ansar
* Babbar Khalsa International
* Bank Al Taqwa Ltd. (a.k.a. Al Taqwa Bank; a.k.a. Bank Al Taqwa)
* Black Star
* Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) (a.k.a. CPN(M); a.k.a. the United Revolutionary People’s Council, a.k.a. the People’s Liberation Army of Nepal)

See more of the list at http://www.state.gov/s/ct/list/

Filed under: Asylum in the US, Human Rights, Immigratoin Reform, Laws, Social Engineering, कानून नेपाल

LawNepal :: 75,000 Readers :: 176 Nations

I would like to thank each readers from across the globe personally for the continued support, comments, suggestions and for loving Nepal. In 2008, almost 25000 readers visited this blog from all over the world.

Santosh Giri, California, January 20, 2009 (Inauguration Day)

Current Country Totals
From 25 Jan 2008 to 13 Jan 2009

[www.clustermaps.com]

United States (US)	15,868
Nepal (NP)	1,663
India (IN)	1,463
United Kingdom (GB)	1,293
Canada (CA)	530
Australia (AU)	448
Nigeria (NG)	214
Philippines (PH)	164
Ireland (IE)	158
United Arab Emirates (AE)	155
Pakistan (PK)	149
Germany (DE)	142
Bangladesh (BD)	126
Hong Kong (HK)	114
Japan (JP)	101
Netherlands (NL)	99
Thailand (TH)	92
Morocco (MA)	86
Korea, Republic of (KR)	86
Europe (EU)	85
Ghana (GH)	84
Italy (IT)	77
Singapore (SG)	77
Qatar (QA)	74
South Africa (ZA)	72
Norway (NO)	70
Egypt (EG)	69
Saudi Arabia (SA)	67
Cameroon (CM)	66
Sweden (SE)	65
Malaysia (MY)	65
Spain (ES)	62
France (FR)	61
Algeria (DZ)	56
Belgium (BE)	55
Jamaica (JM)	52
Iran, Islamic Republic of (IR)	51
Finland (FI)	49
Switzerland (CH)	48
Austria (AT)	47
Mexico (MX)	46
Ethiopia (ET)	44
Turkey (TR)	43
Kenya (KE)	42
Sri Lanka (LK)	41
Kuwait (KW)	37
New Zealand (NZ)	36
Brazil (BR)	29
Israel (IL)	29
Asia/Pacific Region (AP)	29
Denmark (DK)	26
Cote D’Ivoire (CI)	26
Uganda (UG)	25
Indonesia (ID)	23
Romania (RO)	23
Gambia (GM)	23
Jordan (JO)	23
Russian Federation (RU)	22
Poland (PL)	22
Ukraine (UA)	20
Taiwan (TW)	18
Sudan (SD)	18
Trinidad and Tobago (TT)	17
Tanzania, United Republic of (TZ)	17
Bahrain (BH)	16
Lebanon (LB)	16
Greece (GR)	15
Bulgaria (BG)	15
Senegal (SN)	15
Hungary (HU)	14
Cambodia (KH)	14
Albania (AL)	13
Tunisia (TN)	13
Colombia (CO)	12
Portugal (PT)	12
Rwanda (RW)	11
Vietnam (VN)	11
Serbia (RS)	11
Liberia (LR)	11
Peru (PE)	10
Cyprus (CY)	10
Venezuela (VE)	10
Yemen (YE)	10
Dominican Republic (DO)	9
Macedonia (MK)	9
Lithuania (LT)	9
Argentina (AR)	9
Puerto Rico (PR)	9
Croatia (HR)	9
China (CN)	8
Bahamas (BS)	8
Czech Republic (CZ)	8
Chile (CL)	8
Benin (BJ)	8
Myanmar (MM)	8
Ecuador (EC)	7
Guam (GU)	7
Slovakia (SK)	7
El Salvador (SV)	7
Afghanistan (AF)	7
Armenia (AM)	7
Oman (OM)	7
Eritrea (ER)	6
Luxembourg (LU)	6
Bermuda (BM)	6
Georgia (GE)	5
Mongolia (MN)	5
Belarus (BY)	5
Kyrgyzstan (KG)	5
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (LY)	5
Congo, The Democratic Republic of the (CD)	5
Guyana (GY)	5
Costa Rica (CR)	5
Malta (MT)	4
Botswana (BW)	4
Guatemala (GT)	4
Mauritius (MU)	4
Northern Mariana Islands (MP)	4
Belize (BZ)	4
Cayman Islands (KY)	4
Barbados (BB)	4
Maldives (MV)	4
Syrian Arab Republic (SY)	4
Sierra Leone (SL)	4
Latvia (LV)	4
Panama (PA)	4
Palestinian Territory (PS)	4
Slovenia (SI)	3
Uzbekistan (UZ)	3
Fiji (FJ)	3
Tajikistan (TJ)	3
Virgin Islands, U.S. (VI)	3
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (VC)	3
Zambia (ZM)	3
Montenegro (ME)	3
Macau (MO)	3
Bosnia and Herzegovina (BA)	3
Zimbabwe (ZW)	2
Namibia (NA)	2
Guinea (GN)	2
Iceland (IS)	2
Somalia (SO)	2
Lesotho (LS)	2
Burkina Faso (BF)	2
Chad (TD)	2
Mali (ML)	2
Kazakstan (KZ)	2
Saint Kitts and Nevis (KN)	2
Haiti (HT)	2
Malawi (MW)	2
Bhutan (BT)	2
Saint Lucia (LC)	2
Anguilla (AI)	1
Virgin Islands, British (VG)	1
Mozambique (MZ)	1
Cuba (CU)	1
Swaziland (SZ)	1
Brunei Darussalam (BN)	1
Togo (TG)	1
Estonia (EE)	1
Mauritania (MR)	1
Bolivia (BO)	1
Suriname (SR)	1
Gibraltar (GI)	1
Azerbaijan (AZ)	1
Samoa (WS)	1
Honduras (HN)	1
Dominica (DM)	1
Palau (PW)	1
Moldova, Republic of (MD)	1
Guadeloupe (GP)	1
Monaco (MC)	1
Netherlands Antilles (AN)	1
Grenada (GD)	1
Nicaragua (NI)	1
Djibouti (DJ)	1

Filed under: Laws, Legal Development, Social Engineering, कानून नेपाल

Advocate Krishna Pokharel’s Writ Intiaites Probe/Commission on Right to Information

Appeal Registered in NIC against Its Commissioners

Advocate Krishna Pokharel, on behalf of Freedom Forum, registered appeal in the National Information Commission (NIC) on October 24, Friday stating that the NIC did not furnish official information about Chief Commissioner and Commissioners as demanded.

Mr. Pokharel had registered application in the NIC demanding information about the property details, affiliation and responsibility in other organization, political involvement, income source and monthly remuneration of the commissioners on October 3, 2008.

The appeal was made when the NIC did not provide information in the medium and form as demanded by the plaintiff. The NIC breached the procedures and essence of the RTI.

Freedom Forum believes that the impartiality, neutrality and judicial conscience of National Information Commission should regularly be scrutinized as it is the public body having open access to all information and records of the State.

It is the genuine public concern since the Commission is the authorized body to promote and enforce Right to Information (RTI) and to dispense justice when public concern information are not provided on demand.

—————————————————

Advocate Santosh Sigdel Adds:

Keeping in mind that the RTI Act grants every Nepali citizen the right to access information held by the public bodies, advocates duo KrishnaPokharel and Rishee Ram Ghimire on behalf of Freedom Forum filed an application in the Office of Prime Minister and Council of Ministers on September 5, 2008 demanding that the official copy of the report of the commission formed to probe the killing of CPN-UML candidate from Surkhet district, constituency-1, Rihsi Prasad Sharma be made public.

In accordance with the RTI ACT-2007, Clause 2(E), advocates duo Pokharel and Ghimire on behalf of Freedom Forum behalf of Freedom Forum filed another application in the Office of Prime Minister and Council of Ministers in the same day demanding the copy of the report of probe commission formed to investigate

Source: http://www.nepalpressfreedom.org/detail.php?subaction=showfull&id=1225014770&archive=&start_from=&ucat=1&

Posted on 26 Oct 2008 by Admin

Filed under: A Lawless Scoiety, Human Rights, Laws, Legal Development, Social Engineering, Young Lawyers, कानून नेपाल

Nepal’s August 2008 Flood – 50,000 Displaced – 2000 dissappeared !

RIPARIAN WATER RIGHTS

Riparian water rights[1] (or simply riparian rights) is a system of allocating water among those who possess land about its source. It has its origins in English common law. It is used in the United Kingdom and states in the eastern United States. Under the riparian principle, all landowners whose property is adjacent to a body of water have the right to make reasonable use of it. If there is not enough water to satisfy all users, allotments are generally fixed in proportion to frontage on the water source. These rights cannot be sold or transferred other than with the adjoining land, and water cannot be transferred out of the watershed. Riparian rights include such things as the right to access for swimming, boating and fishing; the right to wharf out to a point of navigability; the right to erect structures such as docks, piers, and boat lifts; the right to use the water for domestic purposes; the right to accretions caused by water level fluctuations. Riparian rights also depend upon “reasonable use” as it relates to other riparian owners to ensure that the rights of one riparian owner are weighed fairly and equitably with the rights of adjacent riparian owners. In the western United States, water rights are generally allocated under the principle of prior appropriation, which is derived from Spanish law and treats water as a resource unrelated to land.

NON-MAINTENANCE OF KOSHI DAM

‘Non-maintenance by India led to Koshi havoc’: A high-level government team that inspected areas devastated by the flooded Koshi River has held India responsible for the havoc. The devastation took place as the Indian side did not carry out repair and maintenance work on the Koshi barrage and the embankment along the river, thereby violating the Nepal-India Koshi agreement, said top officials. India is entirely responsible for repair and maintenance work and operation of the barrage, as per the bilateral agreement signed in 1954. “Every year in the past the Indian side used to do at least some maintenance work. But this year they did not carry out the repairs,” Khom Raj Dahal, Deputy Director General of the Department of Water Induced Disaster Prevention (DWIDP), told the Post. “This was the main reason why the Koshi breached the embankment and submerged about 10,000 hectares of cultivated land and villages.” The Indian side used to contact the Regional Directorate of the Department of Irrigation (DoI) in Biratnagar. The DoI plays a facilitating role as and when requested by the Indian teams. “But, this year they did not contact the DoI regional office” Dahal said[2].

POURING FOREIGN AID

After the government’s call for support to the floods victims of Sunsari, relief aid continues to pour in from national and international communities. The European Commission announced a total of 1 million Euros (Rs 103 million) as the humanitarian aid for victims of Koshi floods Friday. Food aid and nutritional support will be provided to the victims through the fund, which will be channeled through the European Commission Humanitarian Aid department, ECHO, under the responsibility of Commissioner Louis Michel. This assistance will target up to 50,000 people displaced by the floods, who will receive emergency food aid and the most vulnerable will benefit from nutritional support through the World Food Programme, a statement by EU said. Similarly, the secretaries and staffs of the ministry of peace and reconstruction also announced to lend financial support. The secretaries will give their three-day salary while other staffs will spare their one day’s earning. The staffs of the home ministry contributed over Rs 100,000 and Nepal Telecom contributed Rs 3 million to the prime minister’s trust for natural calamities[3].

THE WATER TREATIES AND NEPAL’S POSITION

Nepal’s freshwater resources flowing down from the Himalayan heights have attracted the attention of various powerful quarters. While the upper co-riparian country, China, has not posed any major problem for Nepal’s water resources, the signing of the first water sharing treaty with India, the Kosi Agreement, 1954, based on unequal provisions, set the tone for gradual colonisation of Nepali waters by India. The second Gandak Agreement, signed in 1959, was also based on unequal benefit-sharing provisions. The net benefits to Nepal from these treaty-based huge barrages are predictable: enormous floods during monsoon and dry spells during winter. The benefit of electricity is virtually non-existent. These two agreements form the basis of the so called ‘anti-Indian’ sentiments among a large section of the people of Nepal, using which all the Communist parties have built their political base. These agreements were signed when the Nepali Congress (NC) was in power or sharing power with the monarchy. Since then, NC has never recovered from the image of being a ‘pro-Indian agent’ selling Nepal’s precious rivers and waters in order to remain in power in Kathmandu. Indeed, a bigger sell-out was the signing of the Mahakali Integrated Development River Treaty in 1996, the cancellation of which was one of main highlights of the 40-point demand by the Maoists before launching the People’s War in 1996. The CPN (UML), then considered a revolutionary party, lost its political base after approving the Mahakali Treaty. It was humbled in the recent elections. UML general secretary, Madhav Nepal, paid a heavy price by losing from two constituencies. Nepal claimed that the Mahakali Treaty stood as a benchmark in Nepal-India relations. But he did not mention why the treaty provisions have not been implemented even after 12 years. If it all had gone well, the Pancheshwar Dam should have been built four years ago and Nepal should have been receiving billions in benefits and royalty as claimed by another defeated UML heavyweight KP Oli. Many in Nepal believe that the controversial Tanakpur and Mahakali treaties are the main factors behind the murders of the then UML leaders Madan Bhandari and Jivaraj Ashrit, who were opposed to these unjust arrangements. Nepal’s three major beautiful rivers are already gone. India has already gained consumptive rights of water use. The only major river basin still left was about to be taken by the now dead Enron – the Karnali River – with the mega Karnali-Chisapani dam proposed over it. Indian and Russian competitions are underway to grab the license for its construction. The Saptakoshi High Dam and other proposals are underway. Indian companies have won the license for lucrative dam projects in Nepal – Arun III and Upper Karnali. Australian multinational Snowy Mountain Engineering Corporation (SMEC) has won the licence for the West Seti project, from which India will get free water through Karnali and 90 per cent cheap electricity. However, Nepal will continue to live in darkness. Now, all eyes are set upon the Maoists. The challenges before the Maoist-led government are inevitable: these unequal treaties should be reviewed/nullified and new arrangements should be made on the basis of principles of international water laws and practices. The licensing of Arun III, Upper Karnali and West Seti projects could be withdrawn leading to open and competitive biddings. Before that, Nepal’s primary right to use electric power domestically and the guarantee of lower-riparian benefits should be ensured. As for the unilateral embankments constructed in the Tarai, will they be broken or re-evaluated? If the Maoist leaders fail to bring any fundamental shift in Nepal-India water relations, which includes reviewing the controversial 1950 treaty of peace and friendship, they will be considered as no different from other parties. Undoubtedly, we need India and its support – but at what cost to the Nepali people[4]?

RESPONSIBILITIES

Further, India has been guilty of reneging on the agreement in other ways as well. For instance, according to the terms of the agreement, India is responsible for the maintenance, cleaning and siphoning of the barrage. However, in the last 20 years India has not performed this duty seriously and sincerely. Nepali people have been victimised by this severe negligence[5]. Nepal and India signed the Mahakali Treaty in 1996, but despite ratification by the Nepalese parliament, the Treaty has remained stalled. Despite these treaties, serious differences over water sharing, water management and hydropower projects continue to spoil relations between India, on the one hand, and Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal, on the other. Differences between India and Pakistan continue to create ill will between the two on around 11 large hydroelectric projects India plans to construct, including the Baglihar Project, over which Pakistan has sought the appointment of a neutral expert by the World Bank after the failure of talks. More than the dispute over Jammu and Kashmir, the issue of the waters of Jhelum and Chenab has the potential to once again provoke people in Pakistan against India and push the two countries to war. Dr Mubashar Hassan has given a sound proposal to resolve the dispute over Baglihar. He has proposed to install telemeters on the Baglihar to monitor daily release of water in order to ensure due supply of water from the Baglihar Dam to Pakistan. Bangladesh, which shares 54 rivers with India as a lower riparian, has serious differences with New Delhi that hinder agreement on eight rivers, besides the continuing complaints by Dhaka over sharing of the waters of the Ganges. The Indian plan, which is now under review, to build a big river-linking-project that includes diversion of water from Ganges and Brahmaputra, has become yet another source of antagonism between the two countries, which have not been able to sort out their differences over a whole range of issues that continue to fuel political tension which, in turn, does not allow the resolution of differences over water. As an upper riparian, Nepal has a different relationship with India and faces many problems in constructing its dams due to opposition by the lower riparian and has serious doubts about the projects proposed by India. Nepal’s mistrust, beside other factors, has been reinforced by what it perceives to be various unequal treaties — starting from the construction of the Sharada Dam (1927), the 1950 Treaty and the Letters of Exchange of 1950 and 1965, thee Koshi Agreement (1954), the Gandak Agreement (1959), the Tanakpur Agreement (1991) and the Mahakali Treaty (1996)[6].

KOSHI MULTIPURPOSE PROJECT [7] : THE REASON FOR THE FLOOD

The proposed dams in Nepal are in news again and the discussions over the issue is stale. Jagadanand, then Water Resource Minister of Bihar, asserted in Bihar Vidhan Sabha (22nd July 2002), ‘…Sir, the last point, no discharge control-no flood control. Unless the discharge is controlled, the scientists all over the world are convinced that the floods cannot be controlled…Embankments do not control the discharge, they can, at best, prevent water from spreading. Weak embankments cannot hold uncontrolled discharge and the flood will continue to bother us as a natural calamity. If we want to control floods in this state, we will have to control discharge in the upper riparian states and the neighboring countries. We have had negotiations with them and have unanimously agreed that to proceed jointly.’ In reply to a call attention motion of Ram Vilas Paswan regarding floods in Bihar, Arjun Charan Sethi, Minister of Water Resources at the Center told the Lok Sabha, on the 22nd August 2003, ‘…So far as Bihar is concerned, we are having constant interaction with the Government of Nepal because we all know these rivers originate from Nepal. Unless we have any kind of agreement with Nepal, this problem cannot be solved. The proposal for setting up of the Joint Project Office in Nepal for taking up field investigations and preparation of Detailed Project Report has since been approved. 100 officials from Nepal, and 42 officials from India are to carry out field investigations and studies. The project will inter alia have 269 meters high dam with an installed capacity of 3,300 MW and irrigation benefits accruing both to India and Nepal. In addition to Kosi Multipurpose Project, it will include Sun Kosi Diversion scheme as well.’ Similar statement was made by Priya Ranjan Das Munshi, Central Minister of Water Resources, made a statement in Kishanganj on the 5th June in 2004. Jay Prakash Narayan Yadav, State Minister of Water Resources at the Center on the 24th June 2004, while talking to the press in New Delhi said that a sum of Rs. 29 Crores has been sanctioned for the construction of the Kosi High Dam (He must have meant that it was for the preparation of the DPR). As far as Barahkshetra Dam is concerned, the politicians in India are sticking to the same statement that dialogue with Nepal is on and on this is since 1947. Jay Prakash Narayan Yadav reiterated his statement again in 2005. The joint team is working in Nepal for the preparation of the DPR but its personnel are tight lipped over what they are going to propose and when. The ghost of the Barahkshetra Dam haunts the planners, engineers and the politicians ever since the embanking plans of the Kosi was rejected in favor of a large dam by the Central Government in 1946 and the statements like the one given by Jagadanand, Arjun Charan Sethi, Das Munshi or Jay Prakash Narayan Yadav are a matter of routine in the flood season. The annual report of Water Resources Department of Bihar (2006-07) has already completed the formality of suggesting that the solution to the flood problems of Bihar lies in building dams in Nepal and wants the Center to expedite the negotiations. These negotiations are, however, going on for the past 60 years. The factual position about these dams is that they are no way linked to flood control and the flood victims of North Bihar have been systematically fooled over years and they will suffer indefinitely at the hands of the politicians, engineers and the vested interests that are dangling carrots of these dams for decades. Here is the reason, why. There are three dams that often come as proposal to solve north Bihar problems. These are the Chisapani on the Kamla, the Nunthore dam on the Bagmati and the Barahkshetra on the Kosi. The Report of the Second Irrigation Commission of Bihar (1994) spells very clearly that there is no flood cushion provided in the proposed Chisapani Reservoir on the Kamla. (Vol. V, Part -1, p-511). A Report of the Expert Committee to study impact of interlinking of river on Bihar (April 2005, Chapter III, p-16) says, ‘…But the proposed Sapta Kosi Dam too has not been provided with any flood cushion which should be provided for flood moderation…’ Regarding the proposed Nunthore Dam on the Bagmati, the Second Bihar Irrigation Commission Report says, ‘…it appears clearly that even after the construction of dam at Nunthore, there would be no appreciable flood moderation in the middle and lower reaches of the Bagmati and obviously further supplementary floods managements measures would be needed’ (Vol. V Part-1, p-414). A recent report of WRD of GoB (May 2006) observes that ‘…but none of these schemes could come up as yet, and in near future also there is little hope of execution of these schemes (Chapter-V, p-1).’ Thus, there is neither any flood cushion provided in the design of the proposed dams nor is there any likelihood of the dams being built in near future[8].

BASED ON COMPILATION OF PUBLISHED NEWS AND ARTICLES AVAILABLE ON INTERNET. THE SOURCES HAVE BEEN DULY CITED.

---

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riparian_water_rights

[2] http://ekantipur.com/

[3] http://www.nepalnews.com/archive/2008/aug/aug22/news06.php

[4] http://www.wiserearth.org/resource/view/170bb5be943f13d859de7fd3e39f757b

[5] http://www.wafed-nepal.org/form.html

[6] http://www.nepalnews.com/archive/2005/others/guestcolumn/guest_columns_apr05_5.php

[7] http://www.indiawaterportal.org/blog/index.php/2007/06/

[8] http://www.hardnewsmedia.com/2007/07/1034

Filed under: A Lawless Scoiety, Asylum in the US, Human Rights, Immigratoin Reform, Laws, Legal Development, Social Engineering, कानून नेपाल

Take Disciplinary Action

To,

Nepal Bar Council

Ram Shah Path, Kathmandu, Nepal.

Honorable Chairman,

ANLUS has serious concern over news published in www.khojtalashonline.com on 10th July issue regarding the Limbuwan court where Chabi Sambahamphe, an advocate licensed by Nepal Bar council has been practicing Unauthorized Practice of Law. Appropriate action has to be taken.

Association of Nepalese Lawyers and Scholars in the United States

web site: www.anlus.org email : anlusnepal@gmail.com

Filed under: A Lawless Scoiety, Laws, Legal Development, Social Engineering, Young Lawyers, कानून नेपाल

Local Tibetan deported to Nepal

By Vanessa Miller (Contact)

Wednesday, June 4, 2008

SOURCE: http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2008/jun/04/lafayettes-tibetan-national-deported-over-night/

Theodore Olsen, courtesy photo

Namgyal Tsering with his son, Namkha, who is now17 months old.

A Tibetan national who’s been living in Boulder County for about a decade and has been fighting deportation for months was flown to Nepal in the middle of the night Wednesday, accompanied by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, his attorney said.

In January, an immigration judge ordered that Namgyal Tsering, 35, of Lafayette, be deported to Nepal — despite his pleas for asylum and his fears that he’ll be arrested and persecuted there.

“It’s unlikely he will be permitted to come back to the country,” attorney Theodore Olsen said of his client Tsering, who has a 16-month-old son in Lafayette.

“I’m sure it was very distressing for him to have no idea what’s going to happen to him and knowledge that he won’t see his son for many years,” Olsen said hours after his client was deported. “I can’t imagine what he was going through on that flight.”

Tim Counts, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokesman, said his agency doesn’t discuss details of a removal “until it’s complete.” The term “removal,” he said, encompasses the entire deportation process, from when a person leaves the United States to the time he or she arrives at the destination.

“And we have not carried out the removal,” Counts said.

Tsering’s flight was scheduled to arrive in Kathmandu at 1 a.m. today, Boulder time, his attorney Olsen said.

Tsering came to the United States from Tibet in 1997 — with a Nepalese passport he obtained using a false name and nationality — because Chinese authorities were after him for dissenting against their occupation of the country. He waited until 2002 to file for asylum.

His request was denied because he waited more than the allowed year to file the paperwork, and — although a judge ruled he shouldn’t be sent back to China — he was arrested in March under orders of deportation to Nepal.

Olsen said officers used his client’s false Nepalese passport to get him traveling documents to Nepal, even though a U.S. judge ruled they were fake and that Tsering actually is from Tibet.

Tuesday, Olsen filed a petition in federal court in Denver arguing that using the false passport is unconstitutional. He also requested that a hearing in the case be scheduled for today.

“But we couldn’t get it before a judge in time to stay the removal,” Olsen said.

A person who’s removed can’t return for 10 years, he said.

As Tsering was being ushered out of jail near Colorado Springs on Tuesday, he slipped another inmate the phone number for his infant son’s mother, Nyima Yangkey, and asked that he tell her what was happening.

Tsering then was taken to jail in Aurora, where he gave Olsen’s number to another inmate and asked him to call the attorney and tell him he was being flown to Los Angeles, Olsen said.

About 2 a.m. Wednesday, Tsering called Yangkey from the plane.

“He said he was on his way to Nepal,” Yangkey said. “He was really afraid. He said, ‘I guess I’m gonna be killed.’”

Tsering told Yangkey that he managed the call when officers stepped away and a fellow passenger lent him a phone.

“I told him, ‘Just pray,’” Yangkey said. “That’s all we can do.”

One of Tsering’s friends, Claudia Putnam, of Jamestown, said Wednesday that she planned to light candles at 1 a.m., when Tsering’s plane was scheduled to land in Nepal.

“If, by some miracle, he passes customs and is released on the street, I’m hoping he’ll find a way to call or e-mail using an Internet cafe,” Putnam said.

RELATED STORIES

• Family: Deported Tibetan national fleeing to India
• Attorney: Local Tibetan national ‘OK’ in Nepal after deportation
• Lafayette Tibetan fights deportation

Filed under: A Lawless Scoiety, Asylum in the US, Human Rights, Immigratoin Reform, Laws, Legal Development, Social Engineering, Young Lawyers, कानून नेपाल

Janitors reinstated by appeals court

Janitors reinstated by appeals court
“A federal appeals court ordered reinstatement Monday for 33 janitors in Los Angeles who were fired because their Social Security numbers did not match the government’s database, a ruling that could strengthen unions’ case against a Bush administration proposal to pressure employers to get rid of suspected illegal immigrants. The decision by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco did not address the legality of the administration’s so-called no-match rule, which a federal judge blocked in October. That rule would threaten employers with civil fines and criminal prosecution unless they fired workers who failed to clear up discrepancies between their Social Security numbers and government records. But in ordering the Los Angeles janitors rehired with back pay, the court said employees can’t be fired merely because the Social Security number they submit differs from the number in the government’s files – a major issue in lawsuits over the administration’s plan.” San Francisco Chronicle, June 17, 2008. [www.bibdaily.com]

Filed under: A Lawless Scoiety, Human Rights, Immigratoin Reform, Laws, Legal Development, Social Engineering, कानून नेपाल

California Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Decision (Text)

The process of reform and familiarization should go forward in the legislative sphere and in society at large. We are in the midst of a major social change. Societies seldom make such changes smoothly. For some the process is frustratingly slow. For others it is jarringly fast. In a democracy, the people should be given a fair chance to set the pace of change without judicial interference. That is the way democracies work. Ideas are proposed, debated, tested. Often new ideas are initially resisted, only to be ultimately embraced. But when ideas are imposed, opposition hardens and progress may be hampered.

The complete text.

 

 

Filed under: Human Rights, Laws, Legal Development, Social Engineering, Young Lawyers, कानून नेपाल

Illegal Aliens vs I.C.E.

“Since 2003, when immi­gration enforcement was placed under Homeland Security, ICE claims that it has returned more than a million undocumented im­migrants to their home countries, partly because of initiatives like Operation Cross Check. But within the last year, ICE has been sued at least four times—the latest in New Jersey—for allegedly entering homes without a warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment.” ABA Journal, June 2008.

Illegal Aliens on I.C.E.

Tougher immigration enforcement tactics spur challenges

Filed under: A Lawless Scoiety, Human Rights, Immigratoin Reform, Laws, Legal Development, Social Engineering, कानून नेपाल

Can the U.S. border fence be built on deadline without the help of foreign laborers?

Immigrant labor could affect fence deadline

Source:http://www.valleymorningstar.com/news/fence_27501___article.html/workers_construction.html

May 31, 2008 – 11:07PM

By AARON NELSEN/The Brownsville Herald

Can the U.S. border fence be built on deadline without the help of foreign laborers?

With 670 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border fence slated for completion by year’s end, construction companies in Texas are questioning the feasibility of completing such a project without immigrant labor.

The irony is not lost on businesses that have come to rely heavily on immigrant workers to fill vacancies left by a shrinking domestic labor pool.

“Is it possible to construct a wall without undocumented workers?” asked Perry Vaughn, executive director of the Rio Grande Valley Chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America. “It’s probably borderline impossible to be honest with you.”

In recent years, the construction industry has seen a dramatic increase in undocumented foreign-born Hispanic workers, according to a Pew Hispanic report published in 2007.

Based on information collected from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the U.S. Census Bureau, the report also found that foreign-born workers held one in five construction jobs in 2006.

In Texas, that percentage is unquestionably much higher, said Jerry Nevuld, president and CEO of the Houston Chapter of AGC.

If foreign-born workers were taken out of the equation, Nevuld believes, it would put undue strain on an industry that is already stretched thin for skilled labor and make construction of the fence a near impossibility.

“There are a significant number of illegals working in construction,” Nevuld said. “If you try to build a wall, but take a few thousand workers out of the workforce first, you could have some real problems.”

Commercial construction operations are usually careful not to knowingly hire undocumented workers.

Businesses are required to have employees file the I-9 form eligibility verification form, but some undocumented workers invariably slip through the cracks in the system.

In the late 1990s, the Golden State Fence Co., a fence-building company in Southern California, hired undocumented immigrants to build millions of dollars’ worth of fencing between San Diego and Mexico.

The company received several warnings, but federal agents found undocumented workers still on the job in 2005.

In 2006, the company agreed to pay $5 million and its executives pleaded guilty to hiring undocumented immigrants.

A start date for segments of the fence in Cameron County have not yet gone out for solicitation, said Barry Morrissey, a spokesman with U.S. Customs and Border Protection, but when they do companies that bid on those projects will be heavily scrutinized.

An industry already under the microscope, only companies accepted into the Construction Multiple Task Order Contracts program can even bid on government projects.

Despite the additional oversight, the likelihood for illegal labor working on the border fence remains a distinct possibility, some say.
“It could happen anywhere in any industry on any given day,” Morrissey said.

The agency takes immigration seriously, and companies caught using undocumented labor will face legal recourse, according to Morrissey.

“It’s very plain,” Morrissey said. “Legally, it’s unacceptable. Contractually, it’s unacceptable. If we find illegal immigrants working on these projects, we’ll have to take legal action.”

The AGC straddles a theoretical fence too.

Although the association favors immigration reform that would allow its members to tap into a reservoir of workers across the border, the association also supports increased border security and in some cases the presence of a physical barrier.

The potential for irony underscores the complexities of the immigration debate as few other circumstances have.

As director of congressional relations for AGC, Kelly Knott advocates for immigration reform for the construction industry.

She doubts that Congress will take action this year, believing the situation will get worse before it gets better.

“They want to make it so hard on employers and the business community,” Knott said, “that perhaps it will force Congress to take action.”

Immigration is constantly on the mind of Raleigh Roussell, president and CEO of the Dallas chapter of AGC.

He hopes the issue can be resolved soon, so businesses can get back to focusing on projects.

However, he doubts it will impede the progress of construction on the fence.

“They’ll find a way to get the job done,” Roussell said. “I would say there’ll be some mix of domestic and immigrant labor, a fairly high mix, but it’ll get done.”

Filed under: A Lawless Scoiety, Human Rights, Immigratoin Reform, Laws, Legal Development, Social Engineering, Young Lawyers, कानून नेपाल