Army mulls legal action over BBC report

[karan.1970]

Its off topic hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

go see ur face in mirror then come to troll

you ppl are the biggest reason for division of Sub continent and all the hate which Pakistan and Bangladesh along with burma , china and Srilanka share against you

Be careful with your hate.. It mostly ends up destroying the hater rather than the hated.. Pakistan is already a long way down that road though

http://www.defence.pk/forums/strategic-geopolitical-issues/44215-monkey-trap.html

btw, still

 

[CaptainJackSparrow]

you see my friend majority of us have nothing personal against India. We respect People like MK bandrakumar etc who talk with mind not with hate. but ppl like Karan, jack sparrow compell retaliation.
I think India is Playing its cards wisely so do Pakistan . Indian FM statement and Pakistan's returning of Indian heli shows that we can cooperate with each other and we know that tommorow when US and NATO gone we have to live with each other.
We must Shut up Hawks on both sides because we both have to live with each other

We can sure co-operate with each other.

How 'bout you let a certain Mr. Hafiz Saeed know that too?

 

[Awesome]

You can't sue the media, just ignore it for the trash it is.

 

[Developereo]

Are you really sure about that?

The BBC presented certain allegations as fact. It is now up to them to substantiate those claims or retract them. Simply showing random unidentifiable people making allegations is not journalism; it's called acting. Did they just hire some bored Afghan shopkeepers to say these things?

However, it's unlikely that the army will sue. Unless the documentary named specific individuals in the army, they might have a case.

Depends.. Like the case where ISI is sued for terrorism and wrongful death is in the USA courts even though the alleged wrongful death occurred in India by Pakistani citizens

Yes, I don't know how that case was accepted. Usually, what matters is where an alleged crime was committed, not where the criminal or victim is from. That's why extradition treaties exist -- to return the alleged criminal to the jurisdiction of the crime.

There are exceptions: Americans who travel overseas specifically with the intention of committing a crime (pedophilia, drug running) can be prosecuted in America under American law.

You can't sue the media, just ignore it for the trash it is.

If the program named specific individuals, they would have a case against the BBC. But just 'the Pakistani army' is too vague for a lawsuit.

 

[DarK-LorD]

You can't sue the media, just ignore it for the trash it is.

No I don't think BBC one the world's most reputed media channel can be called the trash.I don't think the BBC has posted fake wikileaks,fake ICJ judgement.

 

[CaptainJackSparrow]

If the program named specific individuals, they would have a case against the BBC. But just 'the Pakistani army' is too vague for a lawsuit.

Why not?

PA and ISI are organisations.

Just like Apple and Samsung are organisations.

Organisations can sue too.

...though I'd rather take this news as mere sabre rattling by PA for internal Pakistani consumption.

 

[newdelhinsa]

you see my friend majority of us have nothing personal against India. We respect People like MK bandrakumar etc who talk with mind not with hate. but ppl like Karan, jack sparrow compell retaliation.
I think India is Playing its cards wisely so do Pakistan . Indian FM statement and Pakistan's returning of Indian heli shows that we can cooperate with each other and we know that tommorow when US and NATO gone we have to live with each other.
We must Shut up Hawks on both sides because we both have to live with each other

See even i have nothing against Pakistan. I never endorse any media report easily especially from western mouth pieces. Many threads are running with same topic here at PDF and in one of such thread i have asked the question how and why these reports are coming out more frequently these days. Who to blame ?

The story goes beyond OBL episode, at the times when Musharraf joined the WOT. What he did was absolutely right by joining WOT but he failed to bargain much and left some room for double games for others to come. Pakistan can not live in isolation and a weak nation can not dictate powerful, this the reality of this ruthless world and a common sense to practise without any shame. India would have done same in Pakistan's place minus not obliging to USA's demands.

Pakistan can hunt anti China terrorist in three days but can not kill OBL et al in 5 years and counting. Seems very strange and dangerous to me.

 

[Developereo]

Why not?

PA and ISI are organisations.

Just like Apple and Samsung are organisations.

Organisations can sue too.

...though I'd rather take this news as mere sabre rattling by PA for internal Pakistani consumption.

Yeah, but it's much harder to prove defamation damages for an organization.

 

[CaptainJackSparrow]

Yeah, but it's much harder to prove defamation damages for an organization.

Obviously. Any case is hard to fight when you do not have the evidence to prove your point.

Like I said, sabre rattling for internal consumption.

The right time cometh...the right time cometh.

 

[Developereo]

Obviously. Any case is hard to fight when you do not have the evidence to prove your point.

Like I said, sabre rattling for internal consumption.

No, you got it wrong.

In defamation, once you show that you were defamed -- which is on tape in this case -- it is up to the defendant to prove that the allegations were true.

The part about damages is only later, in the sentencing phase.

Basically, the army only has to file a case saying they were defamed. Then BBC has to prove the claims they made on the air. The reason the army won't sue is because there are no damages to recover. BBC may offer a retraction, which is mostly useless.

That's the thing with defamation. Once the damage is done, it can never be fully undone.

 

[CaptainJackSparrow]

No, you got it wrong.

In defamation, once you show that you were defamed -- which is on tape in this case -- it is up to the defendant to prove that the allegations were true.

The part about damages is only later, in the sentencing phase.

Basically, the army only has to file a case saying they were defamed. Then BBC has to prove the claims they made on the air. The reason the army won't sue is because there are no damages to recover. BBC may offer a retraction, which is mostly useless.

That's the thing with defamation. Once the damage is done, it can never be fully undone.

The BBC is a media house. Journalists are allowed a certain freedom in any free society.

If you want to be able to curb that freedom in a court of law, you must be having some solid proof to back your claims up.

Journalists have a pretty handy argument always available, "...as told by the interviewee"

That argument in parenthesis provides journalists a lot of cover. You need to work hard if you want to take that cover away from a journalist.

 

[Developereo]

The BBC is a media house. Journalists are allowed a certain freedom in any free society.

If you want to be able to curb that freedom in a court of law, you must be having some solid proof to back your claims up.

Journalists have a pretty handy argument always available, "...as told by the interviewee"

That argument in parenthesis provides journalists a lot of cover. You need to work hard if you want to take that cover away from a journalist.

The law is the law. Your wishful thinking won't change that.

Anybody who makes an allegation against someone must be able to back it up. The burden of proof is on the person making the accusation. A press badge is not a license to defame people at random.

Like I said, if it an individual was named, they could sue, but the army as an institution may not since the accusation is so vague.

 

[rohailmalhi]

O i still remember we got hold of some foriegner making a documentary about Talibans in the suburbs of Peshawar i guess .
They were using local actors for the film or documentary.

They all were caught and were send back to there country ,if they have completed the documentry then that would also be a truth as indians put it abt talibans.........

OH come on anyone with covered face can claim anything they want .Grow up and get some credible sources for proving the point.

Pakistan should sue BBC in UK on this documentry and kick there ***........stop the broadcasting BBC in Pakistan as a protest for spreading false propoganda .

ps: I am so in love with ISI they are proving to such a pain in the *** of so called super powers........i m totally loving it.

 

[karan.1970]

No, you got it wrong.

In defamation, once you show that you were defamed -- which is on tape in this case -- it is up to the defendant to prove that the allegations were true.

The part about damages is only later, in the sentencing phase.

Basically, the army only has to file a case saying they were defamed. Then BBC has to prove the claims they made on the air. The reason the army won't sue is because there are no damages to recover. BBC may offer a retraction, which is mostly useless.

That's the thing with defamation. Once the damage is done, it can never be fully undone.

Not really..In this hypothetical case, PA will need to prove that it was defamed. Defamed is not a emotional state which the court will take on face value. the plaintiff will need to establish that the defamation was a result of BBC's documentary. Also, BBC need not even prove what they said is true.. They can simply refer to it as a reasonably accurate opinion under fair comment definition. As long as BBC has not publicly concluded that Pakistan aids terrorists and passed a judgement on that, there is really no case...

 

[Imran Khan]

BBC shuld be packed from pakistan forever .its not first time but most the time there new base on anti pakistan anti islamic .