Former Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf arrested

[janon]

Well it is! He can't be prosecuted for his coup now. Act of validating a coup is as reprehensible as the act of coup.

Indemnity was given back in 2002, at that time nobody was even thinking of getting rid of him - Same parliament elected him as the president of Pakistan for 5 years & allowed him to keep the post of COAS intact.

Did the politicians have a choice? This was the army chief, who had used the tanks and guns of his 111 brigade to get rid of civilian institutions and appoint himself the ruler of the country. He was still in power as army chief and dictator of the country. Did the politicians have a choice other than to vote in his interest? If they did, then they would have been removed by the dictator, and a more pliant politician would have been appointed in their place. HE HAD A FRIKKIN ARMY UNDER HIM, FOR CHRISTSAKE! When mushy dismissed the judiciary and appointed new judges, they all "judged" in his favor, and approved the interim "constitution". Would you expect anything different from the politicians?

 

[Tangent]

There are so many threads created about Musharraf. I have read all of them. The more i am seeing "Indians jumping in, and showing their hate towards Musharraf", the more i am getting convinced that General Musharraf is a great man.

..Good logic....
..So U will vote as per Indian's Wish...
...Reminds me of a well knows fact..'pakistan is nothing, but an anti India state'

 

[Emmie]

Did the politicians have a choice? This was the army chief, who had used the tanks and guns of his 111 brigade to get rid of civilian institutions and appoint himself the ruler of the country. He was still in power as army chief and dictator of the country. Did the politicians have a choice other than to vote in his interest? If they did, then they would have been removed by the dictator, and a more pliant politician would have been appointed in their place. HE HAD A FRIKKIN ARMY UNDER HIM, FOR CHRISTSAKE! When mushy dismissed the judiciary and appointed new judges, they all "judged" in his favor, and approved the interim "constitution". Would you expect anything different from the politicians?

Sorry but why are you discussing this? The post I made earlier was indeed an attempt to rectify Indianrabit misconception about persecuting him (Musharaf) for his coup. Again, his coup enjoys full legal immunity. And yes politicians perhaps had a choice, majority of the members of opposition did oppose this amendment, only MMA for conservation of its vested interests supported the bill. It was PML-Q, party founded by Mushsraf, and some ministry-philic politicians who actually made this to happen.

 

[janon]

Sorry but why are you discussing this? The post I made earlier was indeed an attempt to rectify Indianrabit misconception about persecuting him (Musharaf) for his coup. Again, his coup enjoys full legal immunity. And yes politicians perhaps had a choice, majority of the members of opposition did oppose this amendment, only MMA for conservation of its vested interests supported the bill. It was PML-Q, party founded by Mushsraf, and some ministry-philic politicians who actually made this to happen.

I responded to your reply to indianrabbit, to point out that politicians may not have being doing the things they did out of complete free will.

Anyway, I'm not sure about your statement here that the coup enjoys legal immunity. AFAIK, even politicians cannot vote away something that is written in the constitution. If an act is unconstitutional, as opposed to simply being illegal, then politicians cannot vote to legalise the act. A constitutional amendment would be needed. Was there a constitutional amendment?

I don't think so, because your constitution still says that:

"Any person who abrogates or subverts or suspends or holds in abeyance, or attempts or conspires to abrogate or subvert or suspend or hold in abeyance, the Constitution by use of force or show of force or by any other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason."

Since that is PRECISELY what musharraf did, I doubt that a vote by politicians can actually give him immunity. If something is unconstitutional, then not even politicians or popular votes can make it OK. Politicians are lawmakers, which means that they can make something legal or illegal - but whether something is unconstitutional or not goes to the very fundamentals of the nation's existential fabric.

Anyway, I am not fully aware of this whole saga, so I cannot comment much on the constitutionality or legality. I only spoke up to point out that:

a) Even if politicians may have voted to legalize his criminal act, they may not have been acting in a free and unintimidated environment (they certainly were not; the army chief had siezed power and assumed most of their duties).
b) Very probably, it is not even an issue on which politicians can vote for or against. Acts of law and articles of the constitution are very different.

 

[RazorMC]

...
"Any person who abrogates or subverts or suspends or holds in abeyance, or attempts or conspires to abrogate or subvert or suspend or hold in abeyance, the Constitution by use of force or show of force or by any other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason."

Since that is PRECISELY what musharraf did, I doubt that a vote by politicians can actually give him immunity. If something is unconstitutional, then not even politicians or popular votes can make it OK. Politicians are lawmakers, which means that they can make something legal or illegal - but whether something is unconstitutional or not goes to the very fundamentals of the nation's existential fabric.

Anyway, I am not fully aware of this whole saga, so I cannot comment much on the constitutionality or legality. I only spoke up to point out that:

a) Even if politicians may have voted to legalize his criminal act, they may not have been acting in a free and unintimidated environment (they certainly were not; the army chief had siezed power and assumed most of their duties).
b) Very probably, it is not even an issue on which politicians can vote for or against. Acts of law and articles of the constitution are very different.

Point 1 - I'm not a Musharraf fan and want him to face due judgement.

But this case is pitiable. The clause you pointed out applies to everyone and these same judges helped Musharraf transgress Parliament/Presidency. They had, earlier, legalised his coup and then granted him protection by allowing him to retain his military position while being the President.

The current CJ was brought in owing to a previous PCO and only after the next PCO threatened his postition, did he find the guts to fight against a dictator. When you say that these people might have been coerced into legalizing a dictatorship, how did they find the courage to fight later on? Why couldn't they "save the nation" earlier and prevented countless miseries?

If Musharraf is a traitor, then the judiciary seems to be his associates who got away. This is not a trial, but a personal vendetta to put the judiciary on top of the food chain.

The whole affair is not as simple as it seems. Unfortunately, this whole drama would get sympathies for Musharraf just like Bhutto's death did for the PPP.

 

[Emmie]

@janon Here, substitution of Article 270-AA of the Constitution.

"270-AA Validation and affirmation of laws etc.
(1) The Proclamation of Emergency of the fourteenth day of October, 1999, all President's Orders, Ordinances, Chief Executive's Orders, including the Provisional Constitution Order No. 1 of 1999, the Oath of Office (Judges) Order, 2000 (No. 1 of 2000), Chief Executive's Order No. 12 of 2002, the amendments made in the Constitution through the Legal Framework Order, 2002 (Chief Executive's Order No. 24 of 2002), the Legal Framework (Amendment) Order , 2002 (Chief Executive's Order No. 29 of 2002), the Legal Framework (Second Amendment) Order, 2002 (Chief Executive's Order No. 32 of 2002) and all other laws made between the twelfth day of October, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine and the date on which this Article comes into force (both days inclusive), having been duly made or accordingly affirmed, adopted and declared to have been validly made by the competent authority and notwithstanding anything contained in the Constitution shall not be called in question in any court or forum on any ground whatsoever.

(2) All orders made, proceedings taken, appointments made, including secondments and deputations, and acts done by any authority, or by any person, which were made, taken or done, or purported to have been made, taken or done, between the twelfth day of October, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine, and the date on which this Article comes into force (both days inclusive), in exercise of the powers derived from any Proclamation, President's Orders, Ordinances, Chief Executive's Orders, enactments, including amendments in the Constitution, notifications, rules, orders, bye-laws or in execution of or in compliance with any orders made or sentences passed by any authority in the exercise or purported exercise of powers as aforesaid, shall, notwithstanding any judgment of any court, be deemed to be and always to have been validly made, taken or done and shall not be called in question in any court or forum on any ground whatsoever.

(3) All Proclamations, President's Orders, Ordinances, Chief Executive's Orders, laws, regulations, enactments, including amendments in the Constitution, notification, rules, orders or bye-laws in force immediately before the date on which this Article comes into force shall continue in force, until altered, repealed or amended by the competent authority.
Explanation: In this clause," competent authority" means,-
(a) in respect of President's Orders, Ordinances, Chief Executive's Orders and enactments, including amendments in the Constitution, the appropriate Legislature; and
(b) in respect of notifications, rules, orders and bye-laws, the authority in which the power to make, alter, repeal or amend the same vests under the law.

(4) No suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings, including writ petitions, shall lie in any court or forum against any authority or any persons, for or on account of or in respect of any order made, proceedings taken or act done whether in the exercise or purported exercise of the powers referred to in clause (2) or in execution of or in compliance with orders made or sentences passed in exercise or purported exercise of such powers.

(5) For the purposes of clauses (1), (2) and (4), all orders made, proceedings taken , appointments made, including secondments and deputations, acts done or purporting to be made, taken or done by any authority or person shall be deemed to have been made, taken or done in good faith and for the purpose intended to be served thereby".

Excerpt from 17th amendment which validates LFO of Musharaf.

http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/constitution/amendments/17amendment.html

 

[fawwaxs]

The moment that #Musharraf say's, "I am announcing retirement from all political Ambitions' all case will be dropped & the Circus will end.

 

[W.11]

now pakistani judicial system after government is being made a mockery of

 

[fawwaxs]

An absolute joke going on.

 

[W.11]

told ya guys, just politics

 

[W.11]

judicial has been under political influence since ch iftekhar, the only organisation which wasnt politicised till then looks like judges are now too given political preference

 

[Marwat Khan Lodhi]

Tareekh raqam kar li gai he....my salaute to judiciary...pakistan is waking up! We are going through mini-revolutions without going into chaos like arab states.
Now lets hope musharraf is hanged like sadam hussain, i would distribute sweets on that day...i never wanted him to be blasted by talibans...may hamaisha isay insaf key kataharay may daikna chata ta, i want to see a general hanged so that no general in future would mess with democracy.

 

[W.11]

Tareekh raqam kar li gai he....my salaute to judiciary...pakistan is waking up! We are going through mini-revolutions without going into chaos like arab states.
Now lets hope musharraf is hanged like sadam hussain, i would distribute sweets on that day...i never wanted him to be blasted by talibans...may hamaisha isay insaf key kataharay may daikna chata ta, i want to see a general hanged so that no general in future would mess with democracy.

i thought you afghanis hated pakistan? who is we here? afghans arnt we

 

[batmannow]

Sorry, I can't type in your SMSspeak.

The words I said are what I would have said if I was a pakistani. I am typing it as a neutral and objective observer, and speaking from the universal conviction that power should reside with the people, and not with dictators.

If you want me to speak as a cynical Indian from an Indian POV, I hope pakistan gets lots more generals like mushy, who go on several more misadventures while army chief, and then wage war against their own govt. After all, mushy served India's interest more than any previous president, by shutting down terrorist networks and ending support for kashmir insurgency. A self serving Indian would fully support musharaff, because the welfare of pakistanis wouldn't be the first thing on his mind.

It is so funny when you think that Indians are all angry with musharaff for Kargil. Believe me, not a single Indian has fallen for the delusion here that the kargil misadventure was a victory for pakistan. If you are proud of what mushy did in 99, then all power to you - from a jingoistic Indian POV, I would wish you lots more such "victories".

When I comment on the pakistani threads, usually I do so from a neutral POV, and when I comment on the Indian threads, I do so from an Indian POV. But you are free to disbelieve me on that.

The only Indians who talk about strengthening democratic and other civil institutions in pakistan are the ones who can think from the POV of the common good of humanity. Others would love to see more military takeovers, more general subverting your legislature andd judiciary, more army takeover of your civil institutions, more people like musharaff who lead your country into unwinnable and ill conceived wars.

Few Words For You, U Never Can Be A Pakistani, So Stop Pretending It, We Done Great In The Last War With India At Kargill, Thats Why Poor George Hve To Oder So Many Cofins imported Outside India, Isnt That True? Poor George?

 

[Sedqal]

Few Words For You, U Never Can Be A Pakistani, So Stop Pretending It, We Done Great In The Last War With India At Kargill, Thats Why Poor George Hve To Oder So Many Cofins imported Outside India, Isnt That True? Poor George?

By the way Batmannow I told you Mushy was done but you were all macho that NO ONE can touch an ex-COAS