Trial of Kayani for not defending Pakistan

[kink]

You mentioned about drones...Do you know how drone works? Before every strike they inform 'Pakistan' and 'Pakistan' demands more drone strikes, as they are in areas the army cannot enter. Like Kakgeta mentioned, the area where drones target are FATA where Pakistan Army has no presence.

Who in 'Pakistan' demands more drone strikes?
If it is Kiyani who demands more drone strikes from USA then he does so under which law of Pakistan? In that case isn't he a worse traitor than Shakeel Afridi in eyes of the law of Pakistan?
If Pakistan army cannot even 'enter' an area inside Pakistan then is it not Kiyani's failure? Why doesn't the army come clean tells the public that we cannot enter a certain area and defeat the terrorists so we need help from the USA? What stops them from admitting this fact?

The 'OBL' raid is a really sensitive matter, which PAF and PA has never dealt with before. This was the first time experiencing such 'operation' and they had little time to act and were in dilemma. Shooting down the Apache was going to be easy, w F-16s were scrambled, but what about the five F-18s airborne on other side of border? What about US Government and military who would have taken further action and place sanctions on Pakistan and make it a hell for us?

First of all, there is nothing first time about the OBL operation. American special forces have entered Pakistan on previous occasions, though perhaps not outside tribal areas. Besides, there was always a possibility in the old days that Israel may attack Pakistani nuclear sites such as Kahuta so the PA and PAF were well prepared for responding to such incursions.

During the attack on Salala post, the communication was jammed and nothing could be done at the moment. But latter, what do you expect Kayani to do, go to Panetta or Clinton and demand the pilots of the helicopters and the US soldiers, to be prosecuted and executed?

The Americans were at Salala post for like five or six hours and you are telling us that the PA Corps HQ and the PAF Northern Command did not bother to know what was going on?

 

[VCheng]

..................
I understand the merit of the argument - Americans se daro. I'm afraid of them too, but this decision to be afraid of Americans is not Kayanis, its the people's. If that's the case he shouldn't go around spitting dialogues like after each attack "Next time when they attack, we won't leave them...". He should come out and say "I'm not doing it because we will get our ***** kicked". Then we can at least make a decision on whether or not we as a nation care about that and if we decide we don't care then he should follow our order or quit.

Does he need to say "The sun will come out tomorrow"? Some truths are better left unsaid.

 

[Awesome]

Time to come clean my real intent was two fold. 1) Kayani, Gilani, Zardari are all the same thing to us - useless leaders. 2) Parliament is supreme but it is going for the wrong resolution. There should be a no confidence vote against Gilani.

Okay my purpose here was to just rip apart all normal arguments raised by Army fanboys (there is no better rational way to describe people who actively want to curb their own freedom in support of seeing army rule), on why Kayani is such a nice man, and if only Zardari and Gillani would agree he'd bring the Americans do their knees and make them eat dirt.

Kayani is a deeply flawed, corrupt, coward and an opportunist person. But yes you can't hold a trial against him as officially and legally speaking Gillani, then Zardari are first in line and the Parliamentary resolution won't help since officially speaking the federal government holds all the power.

Some good legal points werre raised by VCheng and nuclearpak about the legality of pursuing legal action against Kayani - I merely pointed out the validity of seeing Kayani punished as he is without any doubt hand in glove with the Americans on this.

Kayani has constitutional cover in not attacking the drones and as VCheng said, you can't take defensive action without the direction of the federal government either.

This is what the constitution says:

245. Functions of Armed Forces.
[259] [(1)] The Armed Forces shall, under the directions of the Federal Government, defend Pakistan against external aggression or threat of war, and, subject to law, act in aid of civil power when called upon to do so.

[259A] (2) The validity of any direction issued by the Federal Government under clause (1) shall not be called in question in any court.

This means, that not Kayani and not even the parliament can decide on taking out the drones. The futility of this new exercise is that parliament should be calling a no-confidence vote against Gilani not an anti-drones resolution. Technically speaking the orders to defend should come from the federal government, federal government should listen to the Parliament, Parliament should do as the people want them to.

Right now the disconnect is after the parliament says something, nothing happens - so move for a no-confidence vote. New government should order them to shoot down drones, if army disobeys then we can try them in court then.

 

[Shivani Malhotra]

How do you classify him as a "criminal"? If anyone should be persecuted, it should be the govt. for eg, not giving order to shoot the drones.

Who give a f*** to the elected govt in Pakistan ? let the PM and President complete their tenure with the blessings of army chief.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

well he cant always have things his way can he? Then he'll be accused of meddling in affairs reserved for civilians.....

and contrary to popular belief, PA isnt some organization that can blindly do whatever it pleases........if the civilians were onboard and pro-active, a lot of the problems and issues wouldnt even be existing in the first place -especially as far as COIN is concerned

 

[BATMAN]

Maximum Kiyani can do is go public but would his critiques believe him than?

 

[majesticpankaj]

Sorry for interfering....

But why there is a dilemma on who should take the call. They must be on the same page -- govt and PA. do you think when PA forced the indian chopper down they had called the zardari for permission. army generally have the mandate to take the appropriate action during contingency. suppose US repeats the same thing what would be the response of army ?

 

[livingdead]

Kayani is a deeply flawed, corrupt, coward and an opportunist person[/B]

Can you explain the above. Is there any corruption case pending before court?
Why do you think he is coward?
All Individuals are flawed and nobody can rise so high in office without being opportunistic.

 

[VCheng]

Asim:

An important question for you: Should a drone be shot down without regard for consequences, no matter what they may be? Is it really that important?

 

[Awesome]

Incorrect! Defence of Pakistan is in the hands of the PA and NOT the civilian government which hasn't a clue of what's going on. American defence policy makers, Secretary of Defence and US military bosses meet first with Kayani and the ISI boss whenever they visit Pakistan and not government representatives.

Sure, but its not provable in court, unless the PM comes out and says it, in which case he would need to prove it and I don't think there are any official orders from Kayani to Gilani to be a puppet government - unless you consider Kayani's cold stare that only scares our own people as something - but not provable in court again.

But all in all we can have a Parliamentary trial (which is more like a debate). Let the parliament declare that it would start no-confidence proceedings over the drone inaction and then you'll see all sorts of things come out in parliament and then at least one thing would happen, we would know if Kayani has ordered Gilani to not to order Kayani to shoot down the drones, or not (yeah it only makes sense in our country), or Gilani himself has ordered Kayani not to act.

Status quo and "iski topi uske sar" concept can't stand. Someone has to be responsible for failing to defend Pakistan and that will only start when the Parliament makes drone attacks a serious enough issue to topple governments over. This resolution to attack drones is bogus, resolutions are supposed to be followed by federal government but if they don't follow it then what? Nothing happens till you don't start no-confidence proceedings.

 

[Awesome]

Asim:

An important question for you: Should a drone be shot down without regard for consequences, no matter what they may be? Is it really that important?

My personal opinion? Understand the consequences first. But if the answer comes out that "United States would go to war with you for defending your own territory against attacks upon your citizens without trial" then my answer would be yes attack them and if need be attack Kandahar and Bagram airbases too.

To me, my philosophy of freedom and justice is more important than my life. In my opinion if you surrender how you live and die to the United States, that eliminates your purpose to exist, so its better to defend yourself even if the US imposes war.

 

[53fd]

The important point is, the Constitution refers to Army action in case of war or threat of war, & as far as I am concerned, Pakistan is not at war with the US, or will ever be going to war with the US.

The truth of the matter is that the drone strikes mainly kill militants (without collateral damage coming in the form of a few civilians) that have been a threat to Pakistan pre-9/11, although a lot of the militants in the FATA attacking the state today are a consequence of 9/11. The militants have a stronghold of North Waziristan, & all the tribals have been displaced elsewhere in FATA, KPK or rest of the country. I do not think of (foreign & domestic) militants that are a threat to Pakistan as (regularly) Pakistani citizens, so I am glad that they are getting killed one way or the other, by Army operations or drone strikes. I don't like drone strikes either, as they violate Pakistan's sovereignty, & they are a major irritant in Pakistan's efforts in the FATA (they do only a little in stemming the "flow/momentum" of militants in launching attacks over time), but their effectiveness in rooting out militants can't be questioned. Drone strikes take place where there is no Army control, & are the strongholds of the militants.

The back of the militants has been broken in the FATA, their hideouts & havens have been destroyed, they are killing each other off, & things are slowly getting better in the region. The Army & the tribal Lashkars are fighting side-by-side against the militants in the region.

 

[VCheng]

My personal opinion? Understand the consequences first. But if the answer comes out that "United States would go to war with you for defending your own territory against attacks upon your citizens without trial" then my answer would be yes attack them and if need be attack Kandahar and Bagram airbases too.

To me, my philosophy of freedom and justice is more important than my life. In my opinion if you surrender how you live and die to the United States, that eliminates your purpose to exist, so its better to defend yourself even if the US imposes war.

Ok, I see where you are coming from, but what do you see the consequences short of an all-out war? Therein lies the danger: US retaliation may take many forms that would be as damaging as outright war, without war.

 

[Awesome]

Ok, I see where you are coming from, but what do you see the consequences short of an all-out war? Therein lies the danger: US retaliation may take many forms that would be as damaging as outright war, without war.

If we make a bold step defending norms of freedom and justice, chances are we won't stop there. We may establish our own air raids into FATA, arrest people, shoot the people who resist, bring 10-15 high profile culprits to the stand. Chances are empowering our courts to sentence criminals will entrust people to be more law obedient and raise the overall law and order situation in Pakistan.

One thing leads to the other. We might see a real reduction in subscribing to extremist religious ideologies and violent tendencies

After some improvement if the US is not led by total idiots, they would also realize the futility of their demand to see results at the snap of a finger and a decades long process that moves things towards improvement.

The US will resist. You see the current US strategy ensures that Pakistan remains a mess and ensures that mess remains in Pakistan. They bomb FATA, FATA bombs us, we allow them to bomb Fata, fata bombs us, we allow them to bomb fata... so on. Nothing happens to the US.

Now when they stop bombing FATA, and we stop allowing them to bomb FATA, they will stop bombing us too. But it is within the realm of possibility that the terrorists in FATA would now be free to perhaps bomb the US too once in a while. This is only a possibility, not a sure shot guarantee and can be avoided by other defensive means.

So point was, that there are good consequences possible as well as bad ones. But all of the consequences are better than handing over our fundamental right to freedom and justice.

 

[53fd]

My personal opinion? Understand the consequences first. But if the answer comes out that "United States would go to war with you for defending your own territory against attacks upon your citizens without trial" then my answer would be yes attack them and if need be attack Kandahar and Bagram airbases too.

To me, my philosophy of freedom and justice is more important than my life. In my opinion if you surrender how you live and die to the United States, that eliminates your purpose to exist, so its better to defend yourself even if the US imposes war.

Actually, I'd prefer being a present-day Pakistan than a present-day Libya, Iraq & (possibly) Syria, judging from the conditions of these countries today.