Lesson of Musharraf's coup...

[GreenFalcon]

Even before a General becomes a dictator he is a soldier. He is bound by the oaths he took on being commissioned. Next, he is bound by the Army Act which prevents him from flouting the law of the land.

The question therefore that begs attention is how then does a Dictator justify his acts to the men in uniform he still commands as the COAS ?

As the COAS cases on military law reach him for a final say , having flouted the Army Act himself how does he justify his presence at the helm and his lien to pass judgement on matters military when he himself is an offender ?

What answer would a Dictator have to say to an officer if he were to question his authority to throw the Manual of Pak Military law on him when the General himself is complicit in breaking the law ?

@Icarus

Just for your information, the 1999 coup was declared legal by the Supreme Court, an institution which is the guardian of the constitution.

 

[third eye]

Just for your information, the 1999 coup was declared legal by the Supreme Court, an institution which is the guardian of the constitution.

Great

How about the others ?

 

[GreenFalcon]

Great

How about the others ?

I don't remember any coup after that..

 

[tarrar]

Gen. Musharraf coup was a right one & what Pakistan needed. His mistakes were setting ganja & co free, where he could had sentenced them to death which in reality was what was suppose to happen, but KSA intervened & Gen. Musharraf made a mistake. Apart from that he started of well against corrupt politicians & corrupt people many were arrested but he started going in the wrong direction because of some people. Lal Masjid operation was 100% right, with it sacking of corrupt kara dajjal Iftekhar & shutting of JEW news, but both had money & corrupt support from corrupt & incompetent politicians.

If only ganjas & others were sentenced to death & acted swiftly against corrupt bastards, then todays Pakistan would had been a different one.

 

[SBD-3]

It was all about saving HIMSELF in 1999,2007 and now in 2015.

 

[wiseone2]

Yeah..Personally I'm against authors opinion.. NS tried to abduct PK-805, while the Army chief of Pak Army was inside alongwith civilians..It was a coward act by NS..Musharraf did the thing which was need of hour.

His decision of Laal Masjid was very right at that time though the worst day for him was of 12th May which I condemn always and the Drone attacks which made Army's image doubted..But he was the man who strengthen army and intelligence enough..The green passport meant something in his time..Education sector was not that bad..and the dollar was in control.

This country can only be run by a military rule ..Civil Govt will only shatter it a part..!!

Pakistani Army cannot solve pakistan's economic problems. it is not a coincidence that Ayub Khan, Zia and Musharraf all lasted 9-11 years. generals eventually become unpopular

 

[Icarus]

Even before a General becomes a dictator he is a soldier. He is bound by the oaths he took on being commissioned. Next, he is bound by the Army Act which prevents him from flouting the law of the land.

The question therefore that begs attention is how then does a Dictator justify his acts to the men in uniform he still commands as the COAS ?

As the COAS cases on military law reach him for a final say , having flouted the Army Act himself how does he justify his presence at the helm and his lien to pass judgement on matters military when he himself is an offender ?

What answer would a Dictator have to say to an officer if he were to question his authority to throw the Manual of Pak Military law on him when the General himself is complicit in breaking the law ?

@Icarus

Historically, Military Rulers have used the oath as a pretext to assume power. The oath, which I am sure must be similar to the Indian one, has a provision that states that "I shall protect my nation from all threats, foreign and domestic".
Military Rulers have often used this statement to justify removing civilian governments from power as they were assessed to be "domestic threats" those however, were different days, we have some actual domestic threats these days and have had them for over a decade now and trust me, they're nothing like the government

 

[VCheng]

Historically, Military Rulers have used the oath as a pretext to assume power. The oath, which I am sure must be similar to the Indian one, has a provision that states that "I shall protect my nation from all threats, foreign and domestic".
Military Rulers have often used this statement to justify removing civilian governments from power as they were assessed to be "domestic threats" those however, were different days, we have some actual domestic threats these days and have had them for over a decade now and trust me, they're nothing like the government

Reading the actual Constitution helps, Sir. Every justification used for military rule has been illegal and a lie.

http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/constitution/schedules/schedule3.html

Members Of The Armed Forces
[Article 244]
(In the name of Allah, the most Beneficent, the most Merciful.)

I, ____________, do solemnly swear that I will bear true faith and allegiance to Pakistan and uphold the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan which embodies the will of the people, that I will not engage myself in any political activities whatsoever and that I will honestly and faithfully serve Pakistan in the Pakistan Army (or Navy or Air Force) as required by and under the law.

May Allah Almighty help and guide me (A'meen).