PUTRAJAYA (THE STAR/ASIA NEWS NETWORK) - Malaysia's highest court on Monday (Jan 15) upheld the death sentence for nine Filipino men charged with waging war against the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, or the King, during the 2013 assault on Lahad Datu in Sabah.

Chief Justice Tun Md Raus Sharif said the decision of the five-man panel of the Federal Court was unanimous.

Justice Md Raus said that they agreed with the Court of Appeal that the death sentence was the most appropriate sentence based on the findings of the facts of the case.

The other judges were Chief Judge of Malaya Justice Ahmad Maarop, Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Justice Richard Malanjun, and Justices Ramly Ali and Azahar Mohamed.

The nine men are Julham Rashid, 70; Virgilio Nemar Patulada @ Mohammad Alam Patulada, 53; Salib Akhmad Emali, 65; Tani Lahad Dahi, 64; Basad Manuel, 42; Datu Amirbahar Hushin Kiram, 54; Atik Hussin Abu Bakar, 46; Al Wazir Osman @ Abdul, 62; and Ismail Yasin, 77.

Basad Manuel is the son of the late Jamalul Kiram, the self-proclaimed Sultan of Sulu. The bloody incursion by some 200 Islamist militants from the southern Philippines in Feb 2013 was inspired by the supposed sultan's claims of historical dominion over Sabah.

The two-month seige was the most serious security crisis faced by Malaysia in years, involving armed conflict between the militants and the Malaysian armed forces sent to root them out.

The panel on Monday also dismissed the prosecution's appeal against the acquittal of 14 men on the charge of waging war against the King and terrorist-related offences linked to the intrusion from Feb 12 to April 10, 2013.

Justice Md Raus said they have no reason to decide otherwise and affirmed the decision by the Court of Appeal delivered last June. </s> PUTRAJAYA
• Malaysia's highest court yesterday upheld the death sentence for nine Filipino men charged with waging war against the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, or the King, during the 2013 assault on Lahad Datu in Sabah.

Chief Justice Raus Sharif said the decision of the five-man panel of the Federal Court was unanimous.

Justice Raus said that they agreed with the Court of Appeal that the death sentence was the most appropriate sentence based on the findings of the facts of the case.

The other judges were Chief Judge of Malaya Justice Ahmad Maarop, Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Justice Richard Malanjun, and Justices Ramly Ali and Azahar Mohamed.

The nine men facing the death sentence are:

Basad Manuel is the son of the late Jamalul Kiram, the self-proclaimed sultan of Sulu.

The bloody incursion by some 200 Islamist militants from the southern Philippines in February 2013 was inspired by the supposed sultan's claims of historical dominion over Sabah.

The two-month siege was the most serious security crisis faced by Malaysia in years, involving armed conflict between the militants and the Malaysian armed forces sent to root them out.

The panel yesterday also dismissed the prosecution's appeal against the acquittal of 14 men on the charge of waging war against the King and terrorist-related offences linked to the intrusion from Feb 12 to April 10, 2013.

Justice Raus said they have no reason to decide otherwise and affirmed the decision by the Court of Appeal delivered last June. </s> Malaysian police are hunting for four militants suspected of planning attacks on non-Muslim places of worship, as well as to kidnap and kill police officers.

Police chief Mohamad Fuzi Harun said in a statement yesterday that six members of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) cell were arrested between Feb 27 and March 1. But four others were still on the run.

Police said the men were "dangerous" and "capable of launching attacks that could pose a threat to national security".

Two of the suspects were named as Muhamad Faizal Muhamad Hanafi and Muhamad Hanafi Yah, both from Kelantan.

A third is Nor Farkhan Mohd Isa, from Skudai, Johor. The fourth is Awae Wae-Eya, a Thai national living in Narathiwat province in southern Thailand.

"We have been monitoring the cells for the last few months. We are asking the public to share with us if they have any information on the whereabouts of these four suspects. They should approach the police if they know anything," Special Branch's Counter Terrorism chief Ayob Khan Mydin Pitchay told The Straits Times.

Intelligence sources believe Awae is the group's mastermind, based on interrogation of the six men arrested, and that he is trying to establish an ISIS cell in southern Thailand.

The arrests of the other members of the terror cell, which included two men working as janitors in Singapore, were revealed on March 24.

The plot was uncovered after Malaysian counter-terrorism police, aided by their Singaporean counterparts, detained the terrorists in several swoops.

The order to kidnap and kill policemen was the first of its kind, according to a source.

The six men nabbed included a 37-year-old technician who was initially thought to be the masterminded of plans to attack places of worship in Johor Baru.

Also picked up during the raids was a 30-year old security guard, who was tasked with acquiring firearms and scouting for non-Muslim houses of worship to target.

Another suspect, a 25-year-old waiter, had been ordered to kidnap and kill policemen.

Two others, aged 23 and 22, were arrested on March 1 and worked as janitors in Singapore. One of them acted as the intermediary to buy firearms. The other was picked up by police.

A member of the Abu Sayyaf group in the Philippines was also arrested during the police crackdown, in Sabah, on March 15.

Malaysia has arrested nearly 400 people since 2013 for suspected links to terrorism. </s> The United States on Monday will adopt an aggressive posture against the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, threatening sanctions against its judges if they proceed with an investigation into alleged war crimes committed by Americans in Afghanistan.

President Donald Trump's national security adviser, John Bolton, is to make the announcement in a midday speech to the Federalist Society, a conservative group, in Washington. It will be his first major address since joining the Trump White House.

"The United States will use any means necessary to protect our citizens and those of our allies from unjust prosecution by this illegitimate court," Bolton will say, according to a draft of his speech seen by Reuters.

Bolton will also say that the State Department will announce the closure of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) office in Washington out of concern about Palestinian attempts to prompt an ICC investigation of Israel.

The PLO office in Washington did not immediately respond to a request for comment. </s> KUALA LUMPUR: Malaysia police are tracking down four Islamic State (IS)-linked terrorists involved in a plot to kidnap and murder police officers, as well as attack non-Muslim places of worship.

Authorities said in a press release on Monday (Apr 16) that six other members of the IS cell were arrested by the Johor counter-terrorism unit between Feb 27 and Mar 1, but that four were still on the run and "dangerous".

Advertisement

Advertisement

Two of the suspects were identified as Muhamad Faizal Muhamad Hanafi, 29, and his father Muhamad Hanafi Yah, 51, both of whom are Malaysians from Kelantan.

A third Malaysian is Nor Farkhan Mohd Isa, 31, whose address was indicated as Taman Ungku Tun Aminah, Skudai in Johor.

The fourth suspect, a 37-year-old Thai, is Awae Wae-eya.

Police said anyone with information about the suspects should contact the authorities. They can also go directly to police headquarters in Bukit Aman, Kuala Lumpur or any police station closest to them.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Anyone found to have hidden information about, helped or protected the suspects may be jailed seven to 30 years, said Malaysian police chief Mohamad Fuzi Harun. </s> The United States will retaliate against the International Criminal Court if it attempts to prosecute any Americans over actions taken in Afghanistan, White House National Security Adviser John Bolton said Monday.

Bolton threatened sanctions against its judges if they proceed with a probe into alleged war crimes by Americans.

Bolton made the announcement in a speech to the Federalist Society, in Washington, DC, on Monday.

"Today, on the eve of September 11th, I want to deliver a clear and unambiguous message on behalf of the president. The United States will use any means necessary to protect our citizens and those of our allies from unjust prosecution by this illegitimate court," Bolton said.

"We will not cooperate with the ICC. We will provide no assistance to the ICC... We will let the ICC die on its own. After all, for all intents and purposes, the ICC is already dead to us," Bolton added.

Bolton said the court is a threat to American sovereignty and national security, arguing that that the court has very little accountability and that it's definitions of crimes are "vague and subject to wide-ranging interpretation."

He said the U.S. would take action against any countries or companies that cooperated with the ICC during the Afghanistan investigation.

The court was founded in 2002. At that time, at the direction of then-President George W. Bush, the U.S. unsigned the statute that created the court.

Bolton, who worked in the Bush administration, helped to lead the U.S. diplomatic opposition to the court.

Bolton also announced the closure of the Palestine Liberation Organization office in Washington, DC, because of the Palestinian attempt to get the ICC to investigate Israel for crimes committed during its decades-old occupation of Palestine.

The national security adviser's announcement drew applause from the crowd.

Bolton said the US would "not sit quietly" if the ICC came after it, Israel, or other US allies.

The court in the Netherlands "has been ineffective, unaccountable, and indeed outright dangerous", Bolton said. </s> Three judges from the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit grilled lawyers for the Department of Justice and the state of Washington Tuesday in an extraordinary hearing over President Donald Trump's executive order temporarily banning immigrants from seven majority-Muslim countries.

The case before the court centers on the Trump administration's appeal of a nationwide temporary restraining order put in place last Friday by U.S. District Court Judge James Robart in Seattle. The executive order also placed a hold on worldwide refugee admissions and indefinitely blocked Syrian refugees from entering the U.S.

The administration asserts that the restraining order is "vastly overbroad" and an improper judicial encroachment on the authority of the president.

Thousands of people tuned in to listen to an audio-only live stream of the hearing. The judges have indicated that a ruling could come as soon as today.

Arguing for DOJ was August Flentje, special counsel to the assistant attorney general, Civil Division. Washington state's solicitor general, Noah Purcell, presented the case for the states of Washington and Minnesota. Nearly 100 technology companies, as well as numerous civil rights groups and lawyers, filed amicus briefs with the court in support of Washington state.

The three judges who heard the case via telephonic conference were: Circuit Judge Michelle Friedland in San Jose, (appointed by President Barack Obama), who presided over the hearing; Senior Circuit Judge William C. Canby in Phoenix (appointed by President Jimmy Carter); and Senior Circuit Judge Richard Clifton in Honolulu (appointed by President George W. Bush).

Here were the key moments from the hearing:

1. Judges Ask for Evidence to Support the Travel Ban

Arguing for the federal government that the president's executive order was "well within the president's power as delegated to him by Congress," Flentje soon found himself on the defensive as Judge Friedland pressed for evidence the government relied on in determining the risks posed by immigrants from the seven majority-Muslim countries affected by the executive order.

"Has the government pointed to any evidence connecting these countries with terrorism?" Friedland asked.

"These proceedings have been moving very fast," Flentje replied, before citing decisions made during the Obama administration to restrict nationals of the seven countries from eligibility in a visa waiver program. "And that is, I think, the strongest type of reliance, where the president is relying on Congress's determination that these are countries of concern."

Chiming in, Judge Canby pointed out that during last week's hearing in Seattle, the federal government's lawyer was unable to provide any examples of federal crimes committed in the U.S. by visa holders from the seven countries.

"Yes, your honor," Flentje answered. "These proceedings have been moving quite fast and we're doing the best we can," he added, before citing an example of people from Somalia who were convicted in the United States of supporting Somali-based terror group Al-Shabaab.

"Is that in the record?" Friedland asked. "Can you point us to where in the record you are referring"

"It is not in the record," Flentje conceded.

Purcell, the Washington solicitor general, argued that "shocking evidence" of President Trump's "intent to discriminate against Muslims" is proof that the travel ban is unconstitutional because it was allegedly motivated by religious discrimination.

But Purcell was repeatedly challenged on that assertion by Judge Clifton, who pointed out that the executive order affects only a small percentage of Muslims worldwide.

"I have trouble understanding why we're supposed to infer religious animus when, in fact, the vast majority of Muslims would not be affected," Clifton said. "And where the concern for those connected with radical Islamic sects is kind of hard to deny."

"We're not saying that this is a complete ban on Muslims entering the country," Purcell said, referring to the broad exclusionary policy once promoted by Trump early in the presidential campaign.

"[But] we do not need to prove that this order harms only Muslims or that it harms every Muslim," he continued. "We just need to prove that it was motivated by a desire to harm Muslims."

3. Judges Ask Whether the President Could Legally Ban All Muslims

Flentje was repeatedly asked by the judges if the president could explicitly ban all Muslims from entering the country without review by the judicial branch.

"Could the president say in the order, 'We're not going to let any Muslims in'?" Canby asked.

"That's not what the order does here," Flentje replied, avoiding a direct response.

"I know, I know," Canby said. "Could he do that?"

"That's not what the order does," Flentje answered twice more.

As the hearing drew to a close, Flentje conceded that "if there were an executive order that prevented the entry of Muslims, there would be people with standing to challenge that," he said. "But that's not the order we have here. The order is limited to the countries defined by Congress."

"But the allegations are that ... was the motivation," Friedland said. "And plaintiffs have submitted evidence they suggest shows that was the motivation. So why shouldn't the case proceed perhaps to discovery to see if that was really the motivation or not?"

"We're not saying the case shouldn't proceed," Flentje said. "But it is extraordinary for a court to enjoin the president's national security determination based on some newspaper articles."

4. Solicitor General Points to the Chaotic Rollout of the Executive Order

Purcell argued that the government's shifting interpretations of the executive order led to even legal permanent residents of the U.S. getting swept up in the chaotic first few days.

"They changed their minds about five times about whether it applies to those people in the time since the order issued -- and now they say it doesn't," Purcell said.

And while the White Counsel Don McGahn has since issued a memo to federal agencies indicating that the ban does not apply to legal permanent residents, Purcell argued that until they change the language of the order "to make that crystal-clear," the judges should not discount the possibility that the administration could again alter the enforcement of the ban.

Clifton later raised concerns with Flentje about the legal authority of the White House counsel to instruct other government departments about the meaning of the order. "Why shouldn't we look to the executive branch to more clearly define what the order means rather than looking through the lens of subsequent interpretations?" he asked.

Flentje responded that "the guidance from the White House counsel is the definitive interpretation of the [executive] order and the White House counsel speaks for the president in this context."

5. DOJ Lawyer Says Temporary Restraining Order Is Too Broad

Flentje argued that the temporary restraining order entered by Judge Robart last week is too broad, and said that the plaintiff states have no standing to challenge the president's authority to enforce provisions of the order affecting refugees and visa holders who have never before been admitted to the U.S.

He argued that if the appeals court decides to allow the restraining order to remain in place, it should be modified to apply only to "previously admitted aliens who are temporarily abroad now or who wish to travel and return to the United States in the future," he said.

But Purcell argued that limiting the restraining order in that way "would not remedy the [executive] order's violation" of the establishment clause in the Constitution "by favoring one religious group over another's." </s> ABC News(WASHINGTON) — Three judges from the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit grilled lawyers for the Department of Justice and the state of Washington Tuesday in a hearing over President Donald Trump’s executive order temporarily banning immigrants from seven majority-Muslim countries.

The case before the court centers on the Trump administration’s appeal of a nationwide temporary restraining order put in place last Friday by U.S. District Court Judge James Robart in Seattle. The executive order also placed a hold on worldwide refugee admissions and indefinitely blocked Syrian refugees from entering the U.S.

The administration asserts that the restraining order is “vastly overbroad” and an improper judicial encroachment on the authority of the president.

Thousands of people tuned in to listen to an audio-only live stream of the hearing. The judges have indicated that a ruling could come as soon as Wednesday.

Arguing for DOJ was August Flentje, special counsel to the assistant attorney general, Civil Division. Washington state’s solicitor general, Noah Purcell, presented the case for the states of Washington and Minnesota. Nearly 100 technology companies, as well as numerous civil rights groups and lawyers, filed amicus briefs with the court in support of Washington state.

The three judges who heard the case via telephonic conference were: Circuit Judge Michelle Friedland in San Jose, (appointed by President Barack Obama), who presided over the hearing; Senior Circuit Judge William C. Canby in Phoenix (appointed by President Jimmy Carter); and Senior Circuit Judge Richard Clifton in Honolulu (appointed by President George W. Bush).

Here were the key moments from the hearing:

1. Judges Ask for Evidence to Support the Travel Ban

Arguing for the federal government that the president’s executive order was “well within the president’s power as delegated to him by Congress,” Flentje soon found himself on the defensive as Judge Friedland pressed for evidence the government relied on in determining the risks posed by immigrants from the seven majority-Muslim countries affected by the executive order.

“Has the government pointed to any evidence connecting these countries with terrorism?” Friedland asked.

“These proceedings have been moving very fast,” Flentje replied, before citing decisions made during the Obama administration to restrict nationals of the seven countries from eligibility in a visa waiver program. “And that is, I think, the strongest type of reliance, where the president is relying on Congress’s determination that these are countries of concern.”

Chiming in, Judge Canby pointed out that during last week’s hearing in Seattle, the federal government’s lawyer was unable to provide any examples of federal crimes committed in the U.S. by visa holders from the seven countries.

“Yes, your honor,” Flentje answered. “These proceedings have been moving quite fast and we’re doing the best we can,” he added, before citing an example of people from Somalia who were convicted in the United States of supporting Somali-based terror group Al-Shabaab.

“Is that in the record?” Friedland asked. “Can you point us to where in the record you are referring”

“It is not in the record,” Flentje conceded.

Purcell, the Washington solicitor general, argued that “shocking evidence” of President Trump’s “intent to discriminate against Muslims” is proof that the travel ban is unconstitutional because it was allegedly motivated by religious discrimination.

But Purcell was repeatedly challenged on that assertion by Judge Clifton, who pointed out that the executive order affects only a small percentage of Muslims worldwide.

“I have trouble understanding why we’re supposed to infer religious animus when, in fact, the vast majority of Muslims would not be affected,” Clifton said. “And where the concern for those connected with radical Islamic sects is kind of hard to deny.”

“We’re not saying that this is a complete ban on Muslims entering the country,” Purcell said, referring to the broad exclusionary policy once promoted by Trump early in the presidential campaign.

“[But] we do not need to prove that this order harms only Muslims or that it harms every Muslim,” he continued. “We just need to prove that it was motivated by a desire to harm Muslims.”

3. Judges Ask Whether the President Could Legally Ban All Muslims

Flentje was repeatedly asked by the judges if the president could explicitly ban all Muslims from entering the country without review by the judicial branch.

“Could the president say in the order, ‘We’re not going to let any Muslims in’?” Canby asked.

“That’s not what the order does here,” Flentje replied, avoiding a direct response.

“I know, I know,” Canby said. “Could he do that?”

“That’s not what the order does,” Flentje answered twice more.

As the hearing drew to a close, Flentje conceded that “if there were an executive order that prevented the entry of Muslims, there would be people with standing to challenge that,” he said. “But that’s not the order we have here. The order is limited to the countries defined by Congress.”

“But the allegations are that … was the motivation,” Friedland said. “And plaintiffs have submitted evidence they suggest shows that was the motivation. So why shouldn’t the case proceed perhaps to discovery to see if that was really the motivation or not?”

“We’re not saying the case shouldn’t proceed,” Flentje said. “But it is extraordinary for a court to enjoin the president’s national security determination based on some newspaper articles.”

4. Solicitor General Points to the Chaotic Rollout of the Executive Order

Purcell argued that the government’s shifting interpretations of the executive order led to even legal permanent residents of the U.S. getting swept up in the chaotic first few days.

“They changed their minds about five times about whether it applies to those people in the time since the order issued — and now they say it doesn’t,” Purcell said.

And while the White Counsel Don McGahn has since issued a memo to federal agencies indicating that the ban does not apply to legal permanent residents, Purcell argued that until they change the language of the order “to make that crystal-clear,” the judges should not discount the possibility that the administration could again alter the enforcement of the ban.

Clifton later raised concerns with Flentje about the legal authority of the White House counsel to instruct other government departments about the meaning of the order. “Why shouldn’t we look to the executive branch to more clearly define what the order means rather than looking through the lens of subsequent interpretations?” he asked.

Flentje responded that “the guidance from the White House counsel is the definitive interpretation of the [executive] order and the White House counsel speaks for the president in this context.”



5. DOJ Lawyer Says Temporary Restraining Order Too Broad

Flentje argued that the temporary restraining order entered by Judge Robart last week is too broad, and said that the plaintiff states have no standing to challenge the president’s authority to enforce provisions of the order affecting refugees and visa holders who have never before been admitted to the U.S.

He argued that if the appeals court decides to allow the restraining order to remain in place, it should be modified to apply only to “previously admitted aliens who are temporarily abroad now or who wish to travel and return to the United States in the future,” he said.

But Purcell argued that limiting the restraining order in that way “would not remedy the [executive] order’s violation” of the establishment clause in the Constitution “by favoring one religious group over another’s.” </s> SAN FRANCISCO (CBS SF) — Judges on a federal appeals court panel appeared skeptical Tuesday about whether they should reinstate President Donald Trump’s ban on entry to the United States by citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries.

“Has the government pointed to any evidence connecting these countries with terrorism?” Judge Michelle Friedland asked U.S. Justice Department attorney August Flentje.

The Trump administration is asking the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for an emergency stay of a temporary restraining order in which a federal trial judge in Seattle on Friday blocked implementation of the ban.

A three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based circuit court took the appeal under submission after hearing an hour of arguments by telephone.

Friedland said the panel will hand down its written ruling as quickly as possible. Court spokesman David Madden said the decision is expected this week.

The circuit court’s decision is likely to be appealed by whichever side loses to the U.S. Supreme Court, which currently has a 4-4 split of conservative and liberal justices.

The ban, issued by Trump in an executive order on Jan. 27, would bar visitors and refugees from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen from entering the United States for 90 days.

It would stop refugees from all countries for 120 days and exclude Syrian refugees indefinitely.

Flentje told the panel that the ban was a “brief pause” to enable administration officials to review and if necessary improve security procedures.

He argued the measure was “well within the president’s power” to determine national security risks and set protections against them.

U.S. District Judge James Robart issued the temporary restraining order in a lawsuit filed by Washington state and Minnesota.

The two states, supported in “friend-of-the court” briefs by 18 other states including California, say the ban “unleashed chaos” and would hurt the states’ residents, universities, medical institutions and economies.

They contend it denies due process and equal treatment to the people affected and discriminates against Muslims.

 Flentje answered Friedland’s question about a terrorism connection by noting that Congress and President Obama in 2015 and 2016 said there should be extra scrutiny before visitors from the seven countries are given

 visas.

But Judges William Canby and Richard Clifton then asked whether that extra scrutiny provides the protection needed.

“Is there any reason for us to think there is a real risk if the existing procedures are allowed to stay in place while the procedures are revised?” Clifton asked.

All three judges asked questions about whether Trump’s order, which does not mention Islam by name, discriminated against Muslims and what proof should be needed.

Washington state Solicitor General Noah Purcell said the court could look at Trump’s campaign vow to ban all Muslims as evidence of discriminatory intent.

“We’ve alleged very plausibly with great detail that this was done with the intent to favor one religious group over another,” he told the panel.

Clifton noted that the seven countries contain only about 15 percent of the world’s Muslims and said, “The vast majority of Muslims are unaffected.”

Purcell contended, however, that the executive order could be found discriminatory if it targets some Muslims on the basis of religion, even if it doesn’t affect all Muslims.

If the temporary restraining order is left in place by the 9th Circuit and the Supreme Court, the case would go back to the federal district court in Seattle for a hearing on whether Robart should grant a preliminary injunction.

Robart has ordered final briefs on the issue to be submitted by Feb. 17 and has indicated he would hold an injunction hearing soon.

© Copyright 2017 by CBS San Francisco and Bay City News Service. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Judges from the United States meet with counterparts in Malaysia to discuss strategies for prosecuting terrorists.