DG ISPR Press Conference after detailed Verdict in Gen. Musharraf (R) case

[blain2]

The Supreme Court has already ruled that holding the constitution in "abeyance" is equal to subversion which is punishable under article 6.

You should read the dissenting judge's write-up. You cannot retroactively go back in time prior to the law being adjusted to add "abeyance". Musharraf's measures predate this change in the law. Essentially if something is not a crime today, you cannot make a law next year and then punish me for my acts in the previous year.
The law does not work this way yet here he has been found guilty of something for which there was no law at the time of his emergency.

 

[Crusher]

You should read the dissenting judge's write-up. You cannot retroactively go back in time prior to the law being adjusted to add "abeyance". Musharraf's measures predate this change in the law. Essentially if something is not a crime today, you cannot make a law next year and then punish me for my acts in the previous year.
The law does not work this way yet here he has been found guilty of something for which there was no law at the time of his emergency.

Bangladesh has done it recently, the ruling party of haseena wajid made laws in Parliament and used them retrospectively to apply them on razakars (in their perception) who aided the Pakistani army/state against the indigenous bangali population and have convicted numerous razakars of bangali origin for their war crimes (in bangladeshi view) in 1971 fiasco and have hanged them. So a parliament has the right to make a law today and used its implementation retrospectively. Also I think Nazis were also prosecuted/executed under laws made post world war 2 and applied retrospectively because the crimes happened during world war 2 when those laws were not in existence, the famous Nuremberg trials of Nazis official and the subsequent execution of most of Nazi era military officials under those laws. Many Nazi political and military officials were tried even in absentia even though they had already died before Nuremberg trials.

 

[SIPRA]

You should read the dissenting judge's write-up. You cannot retroactively go back in time prior to the law being adjusted to add "abeyance". Musharraf's measures predate this change in the law. Essentially if something is not a crime today, you cannot make a law next year and then punish me for my acts in the previous year.
The law does not work this way yet here he has been found guilty of something for which there was no law at the time of his emergency.

Two judges threw this fundamental principal of jurisprudence away, since they had become blind with hatred and malice, against Musharraf and army. As simple as that. And I assure you that there is a whole lot of such judges in our superior judiciary.

 

[Dreamer.]

You should read the dissenting judge's write-up. You cannot retroactively go back in time prior to the law being adjusted to add "abeyance". Musharraf's measures predate this change in the law. Essentially if something is not a crime today, you cannot make a law next year and then punish me for my acts in the previous year.
The law does not work this way yet here he has been found guilty of something for which there was no law at the time of his emergency.

Such a view is simply untenable in front of the evidence. I agree it is wrong to punish for something done in past by making new law etc. but THIS DID NOT HAPPEN in this case. musharraf's act was a crime even under the law at the time. It is not you or I who decide how the law or consitution is interpreted and its meaning. The great majority of jurists, judges and lawyers agree that the law has been correctly applied and there was no "backward application" as you claim. Indeed it would be wrong to do so but it has not been done that way.

A minority dissenting view among judges/lawyers etc. cannot be taken as authentic. People have their own biases and give opinion based on that. For example, musharraf is a traitor to the majority of the nation but most liberals/seculars bar a few consider him a hero. So their views are colored by that. There are good and bad judges and even judges can be got to. The judge who wrote the minority verdict simply gave his view whatever the actual reason behind it. But in front of the evidence and great number of jurists saying it is wrong it does not hold merit.

I have explained the same on the other thread also, that this is noting but a shoddy excuse by people who are sympathetic to musharraf and nothing else. This case did not actually punish anyone for something there was no law for.

It is a time when the nation needs UNITY in front of the real enemy, and this crisis is not helping. It is high time that we educated and informed individual put aside our biases and call A SPADE A SPADE. It is not about being a military supporter or not. I consider myself to be on the army's side in most cases but one cannot be blind and support every wrong just because it is from the army. NATION AND COUNTRY come before the INSTITUTION. We need to OPEN our eyes and see where the truth is.

Two judges threw this fundamental principal of jurisprudence away, since they had become blind with hatred and malice, against Musharraf and army. As simple as that. And I assure you that there is a whole lot of such judges in our superior judiciary.

It is the third judge who threw fundamental principles of justice and jurisprudent in the dustbin. Courts are supposed to be "insaaf ka ghar" before any procedural or technical complexity. We all need to put our biases and emotions aside to see at the REAL picture. Blindly supporting the military above NATIONAL INTEREST is not smart nor love of the country. Isn't it high time now that enlightened and educated individuals stood up for what is right?

 

[TheDarkKnight]

Bangladesh has done it recently, the ruling party of haseena wajid made laws in Parliament and used them retrospectively to apply them on razakars (in their perception) who aided the Pakistani army/state against the indigenous bangali population and have convicted numerous razakars of bangali origin for their war crimes (in bangladeshi view) in 1971 fiasco and have hanged them. So a parliament has the right to make a law today and used its implementation retrospectively. Also I think Nazis were also prosecuted/executed under laws made post world war 2 and applied retrospectively because the crimes happened during world war 2 when those laws were not in existence, the famous Nuremberg trials of Nazis official and the subsequent execution of most of Nazi era military officials under those laws. Many Nazi political and military officials were tried even in absentia even though they had already died before Nuremberg trials.

So you had to use Nazis genocide and the vindictive Haseena regimes action to defend retroactive application of this law? Seriously if you had to go that far then you have no argument here.

 

[Dreamer.]

So you had to use Nazis genocide and the vindictive Haseena regimes action to defend retroactive application of this law? Seriously if you had to go that far then you have no argument here.

I am absolutely with you on this point. I don't agree haseena najid set any example worth following. There was no justice done in bangladeshi trials. That was MOCKERY of justice they did over there.

Backward application of law is also not correct either in most cases (though there can be exceptions) but that is irrelevant here. musharraf's CRIME was a CRIME even in 2007 and punishment was death even back then. THE ARGUMENT OF BACKWARD APPLICATION DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS CASE.

 

[SIPRA]

It is the third judge who threw fundamental principles of justice and jurisprudent in the dustbin. Courts are supposed to be "insaaf ka ghar" before any procedural or technical complexity. We all need to put our biases and emotions aside to see at the REAL picture. Blindly supporting the military above NATIONAL INTEREST is not smart nor love of the country. Isn't it high time now that enlightened and educated individuals stood up for what is right?

OK.

 

[Foxtrot Delta]

I liked Musharraf the best uptil imran khan came. Musharraf is my 2nd fav now.

I hope they dont hang him. My prayers for him.

 

[SIPRA]

I hope they dont hang him. My prayers for him.

Out of question. Now, even his conviction will have to go, along with that nasty judge.

 

[Dreamer.]

I liked Musharraf the best uptil imran khan came. Musharraf is my 2nd fav now.

I hope they dont hang him. My prayers for him.

musharraf hang? Not a chance, military is all powerful in the country and they stand behind him although he is traitor.

 

[SIPRA]

I hope they dont hang him. My prayers for him.

It is not a matter of hanging; Rather, it is his conviction for "treason", which is totally unacceptable to PA and a large numbers of people of Pakistan.

 

[Dreamer.]

It is not a matter of hanging; Rather, it is his conviction for "treason", which is totally unacceptable to PA and a large numbers of people of Pakistan.

You are correct on the reason for army's reaction (although it goes deeper) but where public is concerned, majority is against musharraf.

 

[SIPRA]

You are correct on the reason for army's reaction (although it goes deeper) but where public is concerned, majority is against musharraf.

I didn't say "majority"; I said "a large number". Also, it has nothing to do with support or opposition to Musharraf. For example, I am not a supporter of Musharraf; but I am against this decision.

 

[Dreamer.]

I didn't say "majority"; I said "a large number".

Fair enough. It is acceptable to LargER number of people.

For example, I am not a supporter of Musharraf; but I am against this decision.

Please explain why? BTW similarly although I am supporter of military on maters of national security, I am FOR this decision.

 

[SIPRA]

It is acceptable to LargER number of people.

We don't know and there are no means to know either. I gave a cautious statement, by saying "a large number of people".

Please explain why? BTW similarly although I am supporter of military on maters of national security, I am FOR this decision.

That would be a long discussion. There is a difference. You appear to be poster, having the ability to post long discourses; whereas I am fundamentally a one/two liner poster.

I generally don't enter into a competition of arguments and cross arguments, on PDF, because I consider it quite a futile exercise. Most of the people stick to their own point of view, in any case. To me PDF is a forum, for posting one's opinion, whether brief or extended, and reading other's views. That is all.