Army reaction on decision by Special court about General Pervez Musharraf

[Dreamer.]

First of all watch your language ....

Watch what language? So you think the word non-sense is bad language? In which world? OR maybe it is objectionable for anyone to say that your argument does not make sense to them?? What will it take for you guys to get off your high horses?? look at the foul language used against me in this very thread and then tell me who needs to watch his language. ME? I am usually very careful about my language. You can argue with me with logic but don't try to talk down to me.

have you read my arguments ....???

Show me a single line where I said the attack is coming from Judiciary .... ???

I think it was apparent by your post that I originally quoted. But if it wasn't then nevermind.

SO do you agree then, that there was no attack by Judiciary on the army?

Its not 'my list' it is what the relevant article of the Constitution says .... all the Aiders, Abbetters, Conspirators, Collaborators must be held responsible and accountable

It is indeed your wish list as the collaborator clause does not cover thousands of people that you put in YOUR WISHLIST. Go and read the clause yourself, it only covers what I already said I support in my previous post. But his point is quite interesting should YOU choose to pursue it. I actually am ignoring a lot of stuff in the interest of the country. Unlike you.

And what you talked about Judges they had NO MANDATE to nominate or include anyone in this case its ONLY the Right of Parliament

The federal government. You can't go back in time for this part. It makes no sense because The CRIME or the punishment of CRIMINAL does not change by who should be the complainant. There is ample legal precedence in pakistan and in the world for this to be clearly be the case and perfectly correct procedure. Your WISH that this should be different just so that musharraf can somehow be protected is immaterial. Legal procedures doen't go by your wishes.

That said, any order given by the court to initiate the proceedings is also PERFECTLY PROPER and ABSOLUTELY JUST. Because that is the job of the courts, it's why they EXIST! If you don't accept this point than you might aswell packup the whole justice system and leave everyone to do as they wish and the country to anarchy!!

Should anyone in their (absurldy) emotional state not understand this point, I'll be glad to explain to them in detail.

On one hand you says that you are not against the inclusion of others but then criticize the same when I said hang all the Judges of Superior Judiciary who not only taken oath under Musharraf bothe the time [1999 and 2007] but gave power to him to amend the constitution as per his wish ..... Under which Law .... ???

Under no law whatsoever. That particular bench deserves to be hanged even today. Go ahead and do it. But that will be a separate case for a separate crime. The traitor musharraf deserves to be hung first. Let's hang him and then those judges.

Again my Argument is SIMPLE and BASIC it the LAW is to be IMPLEMENTED then it MUST be implemented in its True Spirit and on EVERYONE .... POLITICAL WITCH HUNTING is not acceptable

There is no political witch hunt in this case. There is a crime and a punishment for the same. Your argument would only hold any weight, even as much as a single hair out of a feather, if you first support musharraf's hanging. Without this it is not only meaningless but also the argument for zardair, nawaz, geelani, khursheed shah, imran khan, benazir, pervez ahraf, rana sanullah, mansoor ul haq, usman/salman farooqi, altaf hussain, faooq sattar, hyder abbas rizvi,and many many many such others etc. etc. etc.

And your the spokesperson of Military???

Statement of fact does not need to be from spokes person.

 

[HRK]

What will it take for you guys to get off your high horses?? look at the foul language used against me in this very thread and then tell me who needs to watch his language. ME?

have I used such language for u ....???

and It's not the case of high horses but high morale .... If I am giving respect to you and was arguing with you in gentleman manner I expect the same from u ..... but as you have failed in this I find no reason to continue any debate with you ...

Good bye ....

 

[Dreamer.]

have I used such language for ....???

and It's not the case of high horses but high morale .... If I am giving respect to you and was arguing with you in gentleman manner I expect the same from u ..... but as you have failed in this I find no reason to continue any debate with you ...

Good bye ....

It is you who told me to watch my language, not the other way around. And I replied to that. It is a question of high horses because you said that while quoting a part of my post which said your point does not make sense. When you do that, you are clearly referring to the quoted part. And to tell some one to watch thier language merely for that as you did is being on high horse. Go and examine your post again......it's exactly what you said.

High morals are good, but first you have to show what is not according to high morals.

I am also arguing with you in gentleman manner. Challenging your statements base on arguments as I did is not failure of any kind. You simply have to come back with your logic instead of feeling slighted for no reason. I have no intention of being disrespectful to anyone.

I am sure you are gentelman and I do agree that discussion should be civilized. SHOW ME ONE LINE OF MY POST that was disrespectful to you and I will be very quick to apologize. I don't have any false ego.

 

[Xestan]

Dear we can debate it but it will be futile effort as IK government was bound by Iftikhar Chaudhry Decision and they were not in capacity of withdrawing this case unilaterally ....

Now ball is back in SC ...

Can you quote which decision was the Fed. Government bound by?

 

[HRK]

Can you quote which decision was the Fed. Government bound by?

De-notification of Judges Case [link]

“21. The Proclamation of Emergency issued by General Pervez Musharraf as the Chief of Army Staff (as he then was) on November 3, 2007; the Provisional Constitution Order No.1 of 2007 issued by him on the same date in his said capacity; the Oath of Office (Judges) Order of 2007 issued by him also on the same date though as the President of Pakistan but in exercise of powers under the aforesaid Proclamation of Emergency and the Provisional Constitution Order No.1 of 2007; The Provisional Constitution (Amendment) Order, 2007 issued by him likewise on 15.11.2007; the Constitution (Amendment) Order, 2007 being President’s Order No.5 of 2007 issued on November 20, 2007; the Constitution (Second Amendment) Order, 2007 being the President’s Order No.6 of 2007 issued on 14th December, 2007; the Islamabad High Court (Establishment) Order 2007 dated 14th December 2007 being the President’s Order No.7 of 2007; the High Court Judges (Pensionary Benefits) Order, 2007 being President’s Order No.8 of 2007; the Supreme Court Judges (Pensionary Benefits) Order, 2007 being President’s Order No.9 of 2007 dated 14th December, 2007 are hereby declared to be un-constitutional, ultra-vires of the Constitution and consequently being illegal and of no legal effect.

Suffice to observe that the executive order passed was an acknowledgement of the factual and legal position, i.e. that the order passed by the then President was unconstitutional and void ab initio. If now the said order is attempted to be withdrawn, it will be tantamount to throttling one of the important pillars of the State, namely, the judiciary, thereby subverting the Constitution in terms of Article 6.

 

[Dreamer.]

@HRK you should respond to my post.

 

[Xestan]

De-notification of Judges Case [link]

How does that stop the Federal Government from withdrawing the high treason case?

 

[HRK]

How does that stop the Federal Government from withdrawing the high treason case?

you explain plz how it does not ... ???

 

[Death Adder]

Good decision by honourable courts and totally unnecessary reaction from DG ISPR he still thinks people are living in 1980’s. To save one culprit they are putting the reputation of whole institution at risk. It’s time to stand with judges and courts. Civilian supremacy is the only way forward.

 

[Xestan]

you explain plz how it does not ... ???

There's no explicit order. That's it. The filing of the case was the right of the Government, as the complainant, they can also withdraw the complain. Simple.

 

[HRK]

The filing of the case was the right of the Government, as the complainant, they can also withdraw the complain

First keep in mind it is part of Supreme Court Judgment , explicit order was not possible because Court has no authority to order Government to initiate Government Article-6 proceeding as per constitution, this was the reason Zardari during his tenure did not initiated the procedure, but as NS Government initiated the proceeding related to Article-6 withdrawing it now would simply mean that IK government does not consider 3-November-2007 emergency as violation of Constitution, which may raise legal question specially it may be taken as opposition to SC judgment.

 

[Xestan]

First keep in mind it is part of Supreme Court Judgment , explicit order was not possible because Court has no authority to order Government to initiate Government Article-6 proceeding as per constitution, this was the reason Zardari during his tenure did not initiated the procedure, but as NS Government initiated the proceeding related to Article-6 withdrawing it now would simply mean that IK government does not consider 3-November-2007 emergency as violation of Constitution, which may raise legal question specially it may be taken as opposition to SC judgment.

But the IK Government is going to defend Musharraf in the appeal, what does that tell you? Were they afraid of legal aspect before and now they are not?

 

[HRK]

But the IK Government is going to defend Musharraf in the appeal, what does that tell you? Were they afraid of legal aspect before and now they are not?

It is yet to be seen that on what ground Government would defend GPM, I am of opinion that Government would only restrict itself to the paragraph-66 of the decision not the basic principle

 

[Xestan]

It is yet to be seen that on what ground Government would defend GPM, I am of opinion that Government would only restrict itself to the paragraph-66 of the decision not the basic principle

But the AG said otherwise, even before the detailed judgement came out.

 

[SIPRA]

It is yet to be seen that on what ground Government would defend GPM, I am of opinion that Government would only restrict itself to the paragraph-66 of the decision not the basic principle

I don't think that government would be defending Musharraf in his case. That is the job of his own legal team. What government would be doing possibly is to ask for declaration of the whole of the proceeding as null & void or mistrial, on the basis of legal lacunae, in the proceedings as well as in the judgement.