Pakistan's high court acquits Nawaz Sharif

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

You don't like Dictatorship and hate the entire army to the core alright but that does not mean you should abuse whole Pakistan Army in a forum like this.

It is his right to criticize the Army on issues he disagrees with the army on.

The point is how he criticizes and whether he is willing to listen to the other side.

While Qsaark has stuck to his guns on some issues, he has also agreed with Xeric on other issues after reading Xeric's explanations.

I think on the whole he has been a fairly balanced critic, unlike some others we know of.

 

[blain2]

The only problem I can see is, the ‘civvies’ did not get enough continuous time to fully rape the country unlike the military dictators who ruled in the lengths of 10-11 years, 8-9 years etc. So they had more opportunity to enjoy the shameful act albeit of using the contraceptives in the form of Choudhry Brothers, and Dogar etc. That is another thing that every time Military dictators raped the country, they made it pregnant with another Military dictator who would come out after a gestation period of 8-10 years to repeat the shameful act again.

Then lets start the abortion process with NS as he is definitely the product of Zia's dictatorship. He grew under the graces of a dictator and today talks of democracy as if he owes nothing to the Army. Nawaz Sharif's political career is the definition of hypocrisy!

 

[blain2]

Hum, interesting to note that all Dictator-supports have one thing in common, using abusive and foul language.

Really? And what would you say about this eloquent opponent of Musharraf:

 

[mcuk2001]

Nawaz’s lawyer said his client had ordered diversion of the plane carrying Musharaf to “protect the democratic set up”.

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

 

[blain2]

first of all CJ wasnt hearin this case. second y would court give a verdict against NS if no proof was given.

musharraf lovers almost hate everyone... CJ, Nawaz, Zardari, Lawyer movement, almost everything...... except army.

Ajp, these Musharraf lovers are not just Musharraf lovers. Many of them include those who have seen what all of the above have done when it came to principles and now they are touted as the champions of justice, democracy and what not. Khuda ka wasta, aankhein kholo appni. This democracy is not the panacea for everything. People have their morality so messed up that some are calling for a person to be sent to gallows for disregarding a piece of paper written by men and changed by men in the past, and sure to be changed in the future. Yet the ones who have disregarded basic huqooq-ul-ebaad, by eating up the money of the innocents, hoarding wealth illegally, siphoning off state funding all at the expense of a deprived nation are being allowed to have another go at raping and pillaging what is left of this miserable nation.

This is where the hate comes in. Its not about Musharraf. Maybe Musharraf will never return and people will be fine with that. The fact is that in Pakistan democracy is not about change. Its about maintaining status-quo. Had this not been the case then you would not have for-life leadership of democratic parties. You would not see dynasties sticking around for decades without letting new, more capable and educated folks come to fore. This is where the heartache is.

 

[SSGPA1]

Government policy IS in direct conflict with the basic rights described in article I and II.

No it is not, article I and II defines rights of people and has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the Parliament, president and teh Judiciary.

Article 38 (a) requires the State to ensure the well being of the people. In order for a State to ensure such well being, funds are required.

State raises its funds through taxation.

Now lets look at Article 48 (1 through 7) where it clearly states that President will act on Parliament's advise. This is precisely what happened in the taxation case.

If CJP is so concerned with the well being of Pakistan then he should work on improvement of people in Judiciary and leave the running of affairs to teh elected Parliament.

 

[qsaark]

Then lets start the abortion process with NS as he is definitely the product of Zia's dictatorship. He grew under the graces of a dictator and today talks of democracy as if he owes nothing to the Army. Nawaz Sharif's political career is the definition of hypocrisy!

Come on blain, first of all, I am in full favor of throwing out the current breed of politicians from the politics. I have no sympathy for any one of those; all of them have looted our country to the best of their ability. That is why I was and still am so much against the NRO. The second thing is, how many politicians you would want to start with, certainly there are number of politicians who are products of various Martial Laws. So starting with NS is kind of an access in my view.

Now, I would have been the staunchest supporter of Musharraf had he had done only one thing for this country which by the way he had all the capacity to do. To eradicate corruption in any from any where. Unfortunately he did not do that, because this was not the part of his plan. His plan like his predecessors was to stay as long as possible and use any means even if you have to take support of the corrupt politicians. See you do not hire wolves to protect the flock and unfortunately that is exactly what he did and other military dictators before him.

 

[blain2]

Would have strengthened my ties with Russia and would have avoided any conflict just like we are doing now with USA. If we can ignore USA albeit of it is killing innocents in Waziristan, why we couldn’t avoid Russia back in 1979? Only because Zia was nothing more than a pawn of America and he needed American support to keep his illegitimate military Government in power.

Overly simplistic assessment of the then situation. Do you think Pakistanis would have condoned the Soviet invasion of a neighbouring Islamic country? Do you not see how Pakistanis have reacted to Pakistan going along with the US during their invasion of Afghanistan? Why would it be any different back then?

Secondly, why would have Pakistan suddenly jumped over to the Soviet side when their goal was to reach the warm waters of the Arabian sea by way of Afghanistan?

Please do not try to brush history with such simplistic strokes just to push your point across. I believe to the core of my heart that what Pakistan did was right in terms of supporting the Afghans against the Soviets. We made mistakes in how we played favourites and also in the way we allowed the refugees to run all over Pakistan, yet the decision was the right one. Staying neutral was not an option with the Soviets so close to Pakistan and inflicting atrocities on the Afghan people.

 

[qsaark]

Really? And what would you say about this eloquent opponent of Musharraf:

I was talking about the members of this forum. On the street you will find foul-mouthed people and ample of them on both the sides.

 

[SSGPA1]

Under Article VI, why not?

Here is Article VI:

High treason.
(1) Any person who abrogates or attempts or conspires to abrogate, subverts or attempts or conspires to subvert the Constitution by use of force or show of force or by other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason.
(2) Any person aiding or abetting the acts mentioned in clause (1) shall likewise be guilty of high treason.
(3) [5] [Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)] shall by law provide for the punishment of persons found guilty of high treason.

Article 6 (2) is for Nawa Sharif and Shahbaz Sharif and ohters.

Article 6 (3) is for those who want the trial to be done by SCoP. Only Parliament can punish those guilty of high treason.

Interestingly it leaves out the clarification about who is going to run such a trial and since Parliament is responsible for punishment then more than likely Parliament will also try anyone accused of high treason.

Second thing, if Parliament has the right of giving punishment then Parliament also has the right of forgiving/indemnifying such person.

 

[qsaark]

Overly simplistic assessment of the then situation. Do you think Pakistanis would have condoned the Soviet invasion of a neighbouring Islamic country?

Secondly, why would have Pakistan suddenly jumped over to the Soviet side when their goal was to reach the warm waters of the Arabian sea by way of Afghanistan?

Please do not try to make history so simple just to push your point across. I believe to the core of my heart that what Pakistan did was right in terms of supporting the Afghans against the Soviets. We made mistakes in how we played favourites and also in the way we allowed the refugees to run all over Pakistan, yet the decision was the right one.

What Islamic country? Afghanistan has been our enemy, right from the beginning and until today and will remain like this at least during mine and yours life time.

I do not believe in this warm water theory. And even if this was the case, we could always help them using the route as now we are doing with Americans. Blain, Pakistan is a weak country, in every respect, and weak countries don’t make their own decisions. The best a weak can do is to invent tricks to avoid from harms and that is it.

I also believe from the core of my hear that Zia had other options which he failed to exercise, and if it was Bhutto, things would have been radically different.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Nawaz’s lawyer said his client had ordered diversion of the plane carrying Musharaf to “protect the democratic set up”.

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

Comes down to what the legal definition of 'hijacking' under Pakistani laws is then I suppose.

As PM, he could be accused of exercising authority beyond his mandate (and I have no clue whether he has the authority to divert flights or whether there is any restriction on the PM ordering whoever can divert flights to divert X flight).

But, merely proving that he 'ordered a diversion' would be hard to establish 'hijacking', IMO.

Just going by the one quote really, I am not sure what the detailed arguments were, but as I said, the case would obviously involve around the definition of 'hijacking' under Pakistani law.

 

[blain2]

Come on blain, first of all, I am in full favor of throwing out the current breed of politicians from the politics. I have no sympathy for any one of those; all of them have looted our country to the best of their ability. That is why I was and still am so much against the NRO. The second thing is, how many politicians you would want to start with, certainly there are number of politicians who are products of various Martial Laws. So starting with NS is kind of an access in my view.

Now, I would have been the staunchest supporter of Musharraf had he had done only one thing for this country which by the way he had all the capacity to do. To eradicate corruption in any from any where. Unfortunately he did not do that, because this was not the part of his plan. His plan like his predecessors was to stay as long as possible and use any means even if you have to take support of the corrupt politicians. See you do not hire wolves to protect the flock and unfortunately that is exactly what he did and other military dictators before him.

All valid criticisms. He failed on most of the promises he made. Yet my point is that you want to hang a person who has the integrity of character over most of the chorrs that are on the scene just because you want to throw the book at him. Well you can make legal arguments for doing so, but do remember that all he did was to disregard a paper. Much worse has been done to the Pakistani nation by the guardians of democracy.

By the way, just to be clear, I too was against the NRO. I thought Musharraf should have retired and left the scene in 2004 and now would have been welcomed as a great alternative to NS/Zardari. I think the way he handled the CJP issue was wrong. So these are facts and I do not deny them. My point is the one I state in the first para.

 

[qsaark]

SSGP1, your interpretition of constitution is not correct. I have discussed these matters with people having law degrees here in USA (Emory has one of the best law schools in USA). And they favor my interperion whether it is on jurisdiction of the SC or on the Article VI. You are free however, to present your point of view and convince others.

 

[fas]

I believe Musharraf had good intentions about Pakistan. But he made some bad choices.
1: He joined USA against the war on terrorism. I know USA threatend us, but so did the british to Tipu sultan. He had dignity, we shoud have suppported the talibans too. In the first week after 9/11 taliban wanted proof, Pakistan should have put pressure. I am saying that after what we have come to know about the real people behind 9/11)
2: People here are crying about democracy. What kind of democracy. Most of the pakistani people is uneducated, that means when they vote, they dont see what the parties want to do for the country, but where the partyleader is from.(origin, punjabi, sindhi, muhajir, balochi). You cant have a democracy in such a country. When the people start not to vote for the person but for what he stands for, then we will have democracy.
3: Who said democracy is so good. Just because the west is saying it doenst make it right. We should do what Iqbal said, not to count the votes but to weight them. We had an incident in Norway a couple of years ago, where there was a voting for membership of European Union. 51% said no and 49% said yes. There was a lot turbulence after that. You cant say that this is what the poeple wanted, only 51% wanted it, not the whole nation. Anyways, what I am saying is that democracy wont work in pakistan unless we stop with racism towards each other, and we get more education.

I except to hear a lot of criticsm now