Chak Shehzad Power Scandal

[qsaark]

For those, who are ecstatic to apply Article-6 on Musharraf, should know the article in full:

Article 6 (2) Any person aiding or abetting the acts mentioned in clause (1) shall likewise be guilty of high treason.

All those Supreme Court judges that validated Military takeover and endorsed Musharraf's decisions till 2007, are equally guilty, if we go by Article-6, and including the politicans.

So what? At least you accepted that Musharraf committed high treason as per article 6. I would say it is good progress you have made. Since NS or Zardari were not accomplice in this, they are better. Is there any crime worst than the high treason? As far as SC verdict of May 12, 2000 is concerned, I will go through the detailed jurisdiction of the bench and comment later on this.

 

[opinion786]

So what? At least you accepted that Musharraf committed high treason as per article 6. I would say it is good progress you have made. Since NS or Zardari were not accomplice in this, they are better. Is there any crime worst than high treason? And by the way, the courts did not help Musharraf in this high treason, it was the legislature.

Read again. I did not accept that Musharraf comitted treason. I wrote "those who are ecstatic to apply article-6"

Musharraf could never have committed treason, as, The Constitution (Amendment) Order, 1980, (P.O.No.1 of 1980) section 2 clauses (3A), (3B) and (3C) - gives protection to, Martial Law Regulation made by the Chief Martial Law Administrators, Military court & tribunals, and Chief martial administrators.

Similarly, Article 270-AA gives protection to Musharraf and 17th amendment, which was later validated by Supreme Court decision of 13th April 2005.

The constitution gives full protection to Musharraf and treason itself is decided by the Parliament. Did the Parliament pass any verdict with 2/3 majority that Musharraf committed treason?

Infact the Parliament APPROVED the 17th amendment with 2/3 majority and the senate also.

 

[SSGPA1]

Read again. I did not accept that Musharraf comitted treason. I wrote "those who are ecstatic to apply article-6"

Musharraf could never have committed treason, as, The Constitution (Amendment) Order, 1980, (P.O.No.1 of 1980) section 2 clauses (3A), (3B) and (3C) - gives protection to, Martial Law Regulation made by the Chief Martial Law Administrators, Military court & tribunals, and Chief martial administrators.

Similarly, Article 270-AA gives protection to Musharraf and 17th amendment, which was later validated by Supreme Court decision of 13th April 2005.

The constitution gives full protection to Musharraf and treason itself is decided by the Parliament. Did the Parliament pass any verdict with 2/3 majority that Musharraf committed treason?

Infact the Parliament APPROVED the 17th amendment with 2/3 majority and the senate also.

Very good repsonse. All of the actions by Gen. Musharraf are validated by the Parliament which is superior to the SCoP.

 

[qsaark]

Musharraf could never have committed treason, as, The Constitution (Amendment) Order, 1980, (P.O.No.1 of 1980) section 2 clauses (3A), (3B) and (3C) - gives protection to, Martial Law Regulation made by the Chief Martial Law Administrators, Military court & tribunals, and Chief martial administrators.

First it can be said that Musharraf did not impose Martial Law nor was he a Martial Law Administrator. He declared himself a Chief Executive and proclaimed Emergency so he does not enjoy protection under CO-1980. Second, the clause(s) you have mentioned DO NOT give any immunity from the article 6 (1&2). But things are more interesting than this, continue to read.

The high treason as per article 6 (1) is defined as "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".

Constitution (Amendment) Order, 1980 as well as the 17th amendment falls into the category of "abrogation and subversion and conspiring to subvert the constitution by use of force or show of force". Even though it was the parliament that gave the approval but what parliament? General Ehtesham Zameer (than head of the political wing of ISI) has confessed that the elections were rigged. So if this case ever reaches to the court, the legitimacy of the assembly will also be questioned and if it was found that the President and the GoP of that time had rigged the polls in order to bring the legislature of their choice, than all the amendments made by a phony assembly will become ineffective.

So I hold my position that the Musharraf and all the other military dictators before him and their accomplices can be tried for high treason as per article 6 of the constitution of Pakistan.

I have thanked you because you are the 2nd person (first being SSGPA1) who do research and tries to back his claims up with printed material, not just "east and west, Musharraf is the best".

 

[opinion786]

=qsaark;409601]First it can be said that Musharraf did not impose Martial Law nor was he a Martial Law Administrator. He declared himself a Chief Executive and proclaimed Emergency so he does not enjoy protection under CO-1980.

1999 coup is protected by 17th amendment, approved by National assembly 2/3 majority and endorsed by Supreme Court. What he called himself holds no legal ground and is of no concern.

Emergency is also the constitutional right of the President of Pakistan and cannot be questioned in court of law.

Secondly, according to constitution, sitting President of Pakistan and governors cannot be called into question in any court of law, for exercise of power.

232. Proclamation of emergency on account of war, internal disturbance, etc. (1) If the President is satisfied that a grave emergency exists in which the security of Pakistan, or any part thereof, is threatened by war or external aggression, or by internal disturbance beyond the power of a Provincial Government to control, he may issue a Proclamation of Emergency.

and

236. Revocation of Proclamation, etc.
(1) A Proclamation issued under this part may be varied or revoked by a subsequent Proclamation.

(2) The validity of any Proclamation issued or Order made under this Part shall not be called in question in any court

Second, the clause(s) you have mentioned DO NOT give any immunity from the article 6 (1&2). But things are more interesting than this, continue to read.

The articles I gave validates military takeover. Article-6 can only be applied through Parliament. But Parliament itself validated every action of Musharraf from 1999 till 2007 and so did the Supreme Court.

The high treason as per article 6 (1) is defined as "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".

Article 6 (3) [Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)] shall by law provide for the punishment of persons found guilty of high treason.

You see Parliament is superior and decides what is treason and what is not.

The Parliament APPROVED 17th amendment with 2/3 majority protected under 270-AA of the constitution, passed by Senate, and later also approved by the Supreme Court.

If treason were to be applied .... the constitution itself will become high time treason. That is why it has been left to the Parliament.

Constitution (Amendment) Order, 1980 as well as the 17th amendment falls into the category of "abrogation and subversion and conspiring to subvert the constitution by use of force or show of force".

How can something be considered subvert of constitution when its INCLUDED in the constitution? passed by 2/3 majority?

Will you consider the 13th and 14th amendments by Nawaz also subvert of constitution? Passed by National Assembly - it becomes constitution itself.

Even though it was the parliament that gave the approval but what parliament?

Parliament is Parliament.

So I hold my position that the Musharraf and all the other military dictators before him and their accomplices can be tried for high treason as per article 6 of the constitution of Pakistan.

Like I told you NO military dictators can be tried for high treason. Constitution provides immunity to martial law administrators, martial law and military tribunals/courts. This was also approved by National assembly and now is part of the constitution and ALWAYS endorsed by the Supreme Court.

I have thanked you because you are the 2nd person (first being SSGPA1) who do research and tries to back his claims up with printed material, not just "east and west, Musharraf is the best".

I appreciate that. But you must understand Musharraf is protected by National assembly, the constitution and supreme court.

I gave you this above:
Musharraf?s validity and endorsements by Supreme Court Our leader – Musharraf

Kind Regards

 

[qsaark]

Very good repsonse. All of the actions by Gen. Musharraf are validated by the Parliament which is superior to the SCoP.

On one hand you say the politicians are thugs, corrupt, and pathetic, and hence we need military rule; on the other hand you seek legitimacy of the actions of the former dictator from the same corrupt, thugs, and pathetic politicians. As the English proverb goes, 'Birds Of A Feather Flock Together', so one corrupt supports the other corrupt. A person of your intellect should have no problem understanding this basic reality.

 

[qsaark]

Like I told you NO military dictators can be tried for high treason. Constitution provides immunity to martial law administrators, martial law and military tribunals/courts. This was also approved by National assembly and now is part of the constitution and ALWAYS endorsed by the Supreme Court.

Your interpretation of the clauses is not correct. If I go with what you are saying than only civilians are subjected to the article 6 of the constitution? You are suggesting that a military dictator is above the law i.e. the constitution? If that is true than what is the use of the article 6 in the constitution? These arguments I am hearing for the first time and I don’t think they are correct. Your point that the Parliament decides what is high treason and what is not, well it has already been decided back in 1973 when the constitution was made, and the narration of the article 6 is very clear. In simple words, anybody (there are no exclusion criteria for the military dictators) who tries to adulterate the constitution by force or by the show of force (through intimidating the legislature) is subjected to high treason. The only thing that is left for the parliament to do is to decide the punishment as described in article 6(3).

You may also want to read the Part XII Chapter 2. Armed Forces to understand what is expected from the armed forces.

245. Functions of Armed Forces.
(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.

A number of amendments are made here in order to justify the unconstitutional actions of the military dictators. All of such amendments fall under the narration of the article 6(1) as the adulteration of the constitution.

Parliament of 2002-2007 was a phony parliament; the heads of the two major political parties were in exile, and the elections neither were nor held under a free and fair atmosphere. General Ehtesham Zameer (than the head of the political wing of ISI) also confessed that the polls were rigged and under the direct orders of the than President. Hence any amendments validated by a phony parliament are also phony and can be challenged and/or revoked.

 

[opinion786]

=qsaark;409705]Your interpretation of the clauses is not correct. If I go with what you are saying than only civilians are subjected to the article 6 of the constitution? You are suggesting that a military dictator is above the law i.e. the constitution? If that is true than what is the use of the article 6 in the constitution?

It is not interpretation. They are all part of the constitution. You are only confusing yourself by mixing up. Please make this clear. The Parliament decides who is to be subjected to Article-6.

Article-6 (3) [5] [Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)] shall by law provide for the punishment of persons found guilty of high treason.

The parliament can discuss, make, amend, alter, delete or approve the constitution.

What is law? Anything the Parliament approves with 2/3 majority, passed by Senate and signed by President.

The Parliament APPROVED 17th amendment with 2/3 majority protected under 270-AA of the constitution, passed by Senate, signed by President and later also endorsed by the Supreme Court. It has become the constitution of Pakistan, that protects 1999 coup, and CANNOT be challeneged in any court.

Here is self acceptance from CJP Iftikhar:
Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

But he's wrong where he assumes SC is empowered to review 17th amendment. That's job of the Parliament and not judicial activism. Read, it says very clearly, that 270-AA cannot be called into question in any court.

These arguments I am hearing for the first time and I don’t think they are correct.

If these politicians were to accept that the constitution provides immunity to military takeovers - there would be no reason for them to show-off their presence on media talk-shows and no reason to curse Musharraf. They approve such laws in Parlaiment to protect military takeover - hence their denial.

Why did the Supreme Court endorse 17th amendment, military takeover, uniform case and amendments to constitution?

Why did MMA support 17th amendment? They got NWFP government. Now its part of constitution.

If they want to apply article-6, let them do so in full:

Article-6 (2) Any person aiding or abetting the acts mentioned in clause (1) shall likewise be guilty of high treason.

Your point that the Parliament decides what is high treason and what is not, well it has already been decided back in 1973 when the constitution was made, and the narration of the article 6 is very clear.

Yes, it was decided back in 1973 what is high treason.

How the constitution is to be amended was also decided way back in 1973. Parliament 2/3 approval, senate and signed by President.

If the Parliament desires, it can also kick out this Article-6 from the constitution.

In simple words, anybody (there are no exclusion criteria for the military dictators) who tries to adulterate the constitution by force or by the show of force (through intimidating the legislature) is subjected to high treason. The only thing that is left for the parliament to do is to decide the punishment as described in article 6(3).

Yes there is. If the Parliament revokes all such amendments to the constitution with 2/3 majority. However, that would apply to future interventions and not past.

Constitution is NOT a self-governing body nor implements automatically.

Ever wonder why Zulfi Bhutto implemented Emergency, within hours of approving the constitution? Why our country remained under emergency from 1965 to 1985? Where was treason applied?

You may also want to read the Part XII Chapter 2. Armed Forces to understand what is expected from the armed forces.
245. Functions of Armed Forces.
(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.

I have read this. These are basic laws for functioning of the armed forces. Nothing to do with military takeover.

A number of amendments are made here in order to justify the unconstitutional actions of the military dictators. All of such amendments fall under the narration of the article 6(1) as the adulteration of the constitution.

Amendments themselves do not constitute adulteration nor instigates Article-6.

If amendments are approved through Parliament - they are justified and hence were accepted by Supreme Court ALWAYS. Like Nawaz introduced 13th and 14th amendments.

Parliament of 2002-2007 was a phony parliament; the heads of the two major political parties were in exile,

There is no such thing as phoney parliament. On one hand, people accuse Musharraf of allowing them back and on the other, accuses him of keeping the two corrupt at bay.

 

[opinion786]

I'm going now. Too late.

 

[qsaark]

I am neither a lawyer nor an expert on the constitution. However, the arguments you are making are not logical. Constitution is not different for the civilians and the military personnel. Hence by introducing amendments into the constitution and getting them approved by the rubber stamp parliament whose own legitimacy is also questionable, gives no legitimacy to the introduced amendments. General Zameers confession that he was directly ordered by Musharraf to use ISI for rigging the elections is sufficient to call the parliament of the 2002-2007 a phony parliament. The legitimacy of a parliament came into being as a result of poll rigging can always be challenged and likewise the endorsements it gave can also be challenged.

I have read all the clauses carefully and repeatedly but found nothing that suggests that these clauses give immunity to the military or any dictator or a person who has adulterated the constitution from the article 6.

Constitution is open for the amendments and there are no two opinions. But what kind of amendments? A person in uniform as the head of the state is simply not as per the spirit of the parliamentarian or even presidential form of democratic governments anywhere in the world. These kinds of miracles only happen in Pakistan. By force or by the use of the show of force, a dictator can always force the legislative members to introduce the amendments that favor his action and legitimize his actions. And for this very reason, the article 6 narrates clearly who should be charged for the high treason. As I said before, if anybody in power can force two third of the members to introduce any kind of amendments on the constitution than the whole article 6 becomes useless.

 

[SSGPA1]

On one hand you say the politicians are thugs, corrupt, and pathetic, and hence we need military rule;.

No I never say that we need military rule ... I want Pakistan to be ruled by people who are better than the current choices ... My problem is NS and Zardari and their likes ... I support Musharraf not because he is a former General but because he is better than the other choices.

I also think and have said many a times that there are better choices (besides Gen. Musharraf) and I can give some names as well.

Raza Rabbani
Asfandyar Vali
Javed Hashmi
Faisal Saleh Hayat
Khursheed Qasoori
Kamal Mustafa
Mir Z. Jamali

and many others but these guys don't get a chance to lead the their respective party ledaership nor they get to lead the country because people like Zardari and NS consider leadership their inheritance!

on the other hand you seek legitimacy of the actions of the former dictator from the same corrupt, thugs, and pathetic politicians.

Because some decissions by Gen. Musharraf are goignt o help Pakistan move forward.

 

[SSGPA1]

I am neither a lawyer nor an expert on the constitution. However, the arguments you are making are not logical. Constitution is not different for the civilians and the military personnel. Hence by introducing amendments into the constitution and getting them approved by the rubber stamp parliament whose own legitimacy is also questionable, gives no legitimacy to the introduced amendments. General Zameers confession that he was directly ordered by Musharraf to use ISI for rigging the elections is sufficient to call the parliament of the 2002-2007 a phony parliament. The legitimacy of a parliament came into being as a result of poll rigging can always be challenged and likewise the endorsements it gave can also be challenged..

Parliament was an elected Parliament and that is evident from the decision of CJP earlier posted by you. This makes the amendments right. Besides everyone is happy with those amendments otherwise PML-Nawaz Sharif would have submitted a bill by now to repeal those amendments.

So this ends the chapter for me.

I have read all the clauses carefully and repeatedly but found nothing that suggests that these clauses give immunity to the military or any dictator or a person who has adulterated the constitution from the article 6.

Constitution is open for the amendments and there are no two opinions. But what kind of amendments? A person in uniform as the head of the state is simply not as per the spirit of the parliamentarian or even presidential form of democratic governments anywhere in the world. These kinds of miracles only happen in Pakistan. By force or by the use of the show of force, a dictator can always force the legislative members to introduce the amendments that favor his action and legitimize his actions. And for this very reason, the article 6 narrates clearly who should be charged for the high treason. As I said before, if anybody in power can force two third of the members to introduce any kind of amendments on the constitution than the whole article 6 becomes useless.

First of all article 6 doesn't apply to President Musharraf because the SCoP decission(s) actually have legitimize everything President Musharraf did.

Second, PML-N and PPPP are the champions of democracy with majority in the Paliament and with SCoP supporting them so why are they not repelaing these amendments??

 

[dherky]

those who are anti musharraf, can you please answer one question
if you have to pick one leader out the leaders we have at the moment, which one you will go for
1- Musharraf
2- Zardari
3- Nawaz sharid
4- Qazi hussain ahmen
5- Molana Fazallurrehman
6- Asfandyar
7- Altaf hussain

I think, everyone know how zardari is, so it is wastage of times to discuss about him
I feel number 4-7 do not have the capasity run a country, i hope most of you will be agree on this
so, that leave only musharraf and nawaz sharif
lets discuss nawaz sharrif first,

his frist goverment was dismissed due to coruption charges and the second one due to his stupidity (not letting army cheif landed in his own country)
the economy of his period was not good, even cannot be compared with musharraf goverment.
n.s lied so many times
lied about kargil
lied about the Agreement (10 year) in public
he used chief justic ch iftikar to get his own political benifits
his loyality to our country is doubtfull as all his business and assets are outside pakistan.
he had 2 chances ended up robbing peoples money and defulted country. He built motorway, that is only thing i remebers has been done

now musharraf
he has all qualities of a leader. credible and sincere to his country.
economy in his period is a record in pakistan history. many roads and developemet prjects done m3 and m2 completed.
the only wrong doing is, he suspended constitution of pakistan but i can assure if it was nawas sharif in his position, he would have done it in the same way
so my vote goes to musharraf as i dont find any body better than him. if one day some one better comes up, i will go for it but not not other corrupt politicians


-

 

[Murshad]

Hi Murshad,

I do apologize for my comments---you have every right to make that statement---I am sorry.

A discussion takes its natural course and will move around topics within the frameworks of the arguments---it is but natural.

Dear Mustan Khan
Sorry for late reply. If you are in senior’s category your apology makes me uncomfortable I am not kind of person who seeks apology from seniors and if you come in younger generation even then it’s ok. It may be your bubbling youth.

We all are Pakistanis and want to see our green flag high in the sky always all the times. At least I can assure you I have no personal like/ dislike issue with Mr Mushraff or you can say I cant have because I was an ordinary citizen of our unfortunate motherland and “He” a powerful person of our ruling elite. It’s my wish, hope not last, that a legitimate political process may flow in Pakistan. I know this may not happen overnight and require years of struggle and commitment. When after certain years a Wardi Wala comes then my head goes down in shame. Please don’t say civil governments are architect of their own problems. Forget Ayub Khan, forget Yahya Khan and also forget what happened in ZAB era. Lets start when God had mercy on us and removed Zia-i-Haq how agencies played role in making IJI. What games were played in BiBi’s era? Operation “midnight jackals”, mehran bank scandal, ditrubution of people of Pakistan’s money among anti government elements. How Nawaz shareef was pampered by agencies. After that when Nawaz Shareef was in power how establishment epically military played games.
It has mentioned on this board that Mushraff treated NS like a pow so now his fans are bashing Mushraff. It is not the case and it should not be. He did not come through a legitimate political process and please don’t say judiciary and some sort of assembly gave him legitimacy. When you have gun all rules follow the rule of gun.
I hope many us know how those agencies with sole responsibility to work for Pakistan were used in making PML Q. Election 2002 results are another saga in ISI chapter. MMA (commonly known as mullah military itehad) was “given” a reasonable presentation in assembly. What effects it had we can see all over in NWFP.
Now every thing was going well and very smooth. Political leader was not able to struggle against Mushraff, all laws all rules were emerging and converging from him. Nation should touch the feet of that person who gave Mushraff idea to depose CJ also who leaked the picture of general in uniform and CJ sitting like a pow in front of him. God had again mercy on us and that person who also had some stories during his tenure in Balochistan high court said no to him. I was in Pkaistan those days believe me people did not support CJ but consider him a symbol of rebel against ruling elite and our politicians just rode the surf. He is good or bad but reality was he became a symbol of rebel at that time.
Both NS and Zardari are from same ruling elite but they came through political and can be removed through same process. Look examples of those who never lost election in their lives but lost miserably just being with Mushraff. Same will happen and should happen with Zardari and other politicians.
Now majority of the members are from forces and Mushraff has become a case of class chauvinism just because of being a general. Army is considered a national institute and whole nation should stand behind its forces. There should not be like or dislike in this case.
Now one damage has Mushraff done which no one mentioned. He has tainted the image of pak army. When we young and all absorbed in struggle against Zia-i-Haq, army as an institution seldom came under criticism, and while doing Taberra Zia with other generals names were always mentioned generalization was rare. But when CJ was sacked every person was so comfortable in bashing army and this was a shock for me.
Now our braves are washing the stains with their blood which our ruling class especially generals have put on force’s face.