#MarasiMedia undermines DGISPR: A Threat to Pak State

[maithil]

Media must not be allowed to report anything even slightly negative about State. Perception management is paramount. World should only see positive image of Pakistan.

 

[salarsikander]

I am perfectly happy being patient to see the results.

As a concerned citizen of Pakistan that lives in the US or as just as someone who likes to sit back and enjoy the show and just criticize for the sake of it?

 

[VCheng]

As a concerned citizen of Pakistan that lives in the US or as just as someone who likes to sit back and enjoy the show and just criticize for the sake of it?

The former, of course. I take no pleasure in the predicament unfolding before all of us in slow motion. In fact, I am saddened by what is likely coming down the pike. No one wins in such a situation.

 

[salarsikander]

No one wins in such a situation.

That is the truth and hence i over emphasized on you suggesting a remedial action of what could be done to improve the situation as a concerned citizen and not someone who derives pleasure from such ill news and then goes on to grill fellow compatriots

 

[VCheng]

That is the truth and hence i over emphasized on you suggesting a remedial action of what could be done to improve the situation as a concerned citizen and not someone who derives pleasure from such ill news and then goes on to grill fellow compatriots

The person to grill is the man elected to the responsible office, and not each other. He has to decide what remedial actions to take, not me.

Relevant to this thread, I sincerely think the Hon DG-ISPR should keep his mouth shut about matters that do not lie within his jurisdiction, and let the legal authorities do their respective jobs.

 

[salarsikander]

I sincerely think the Hon DG-ISPR should keep his mouth shut about matters that do not lie within his jurisdiction, and let the legal authorities do their respective jobs.

He is part of State and as such where necessary, govt will use them to implement NAP policy.

 

[VCheng]

He is part of State and as such where necessary, govt will use them to implement NAP policy.

Such justifications of extra-constitutional acts serve the nation itself poorly. But please don't let me stop you from that. I will hold my views supported by the end results. Pakistan will continue to flounder unless the Army gives up its illegal overreaches.

 

[Dubious]

Jurisdictions of all LEAs are defined at every level, and any suspect cannot be "picked up" without due process, including evidence to justify surveillance or detention, an indictment in a court of law, the right to legal representation and to challenge the accusations in the proper court of jurisdiction. Nobody goes missing without serious consequences, that is for sure.

America used other methods to violate rights which don't go through legal process:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin.../gIQAvcD1wP_story.html?utm_term=.d105595e82a9

https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2018/country-chapters/united-states

https://www.amnestyusa.org/can-us-citizens-now-be-detained-indefinitely/

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_58d919f5e4b0f633072b39be/amp

 

[VCheng]

America used other methods to violate rights which don't go through legal process:

Incorrect. The situation is as I have described it within the country for its citizens. Most of what you have linked applied to the likes of Al-Awlaki who chose to become non-uniformed belligerents internationally, where other jurisdictions and laws apply. And even in those situations, there are clear laws and processes in place, subject to proper oversight.

 

[Dubious]

Incorrect. The situation is as I have described it within the country for its citizens. Most of what you have linked applied to the likes of Al-Awlaki who chose to become non-uniformed belligerents internationally, where other jurisdictions and laws apply. And even in those situations, there are clear laws and processes in place, subject to proper oversight.

Clear laws? Really? The rights group suggests otherwise.
.

 

[VCheng]

Clear laws? Really? The rights group suggests otherwise.
.

Their suggestions and fears have never been realized in any case whatsoever. Now can we please revert to the topic of this thread?

 

[Dubious]

Their suggestions and fears have never been realized in any case whatsoever. Now can we please revert to the topic of this thread?

My reason for bringing it in is coz of the similarity of the issue .....where only you are worried abt the legal barriers .....and where you give more negative posts to those related to Pakistan but sweep under the rug when it comes to America....

 

[VCheng]

My reason for bringing it in is coz of the similarity of the issue .....where only you are worried abt the legal barriers .....and where you give more negative posts to those related to Pakistan but sweep under the rug when it comes to America....

The legal barriers are totally different as I have explained. USA has proper laws and process in place as I explained above, while Pakistan does not, as the following exchange showed, which you may have missed:

So how do such suspicions and interrogations comply with provisions of the laws applicable to the citizenry?

I don't know. I suppose at least one specific case, where the involvement of the intelligence agencies and/or military is conclusively proven, would have to make its way through the justice system and eventually have a SC ruling on the issue.

There is no similarity here. None whatsoever, except whataboutery.

 

[Dubious]

The legal barriers are totally different as I have explained. USA has proper laws and process in place as I explained above, while Pakistan does not, as the following exchange showed, which you may have missed:

Nope you didn't explain you evaded the question by saying it is different that's not an explanation but just a synonym to sweep it under the rug!!

 

[VCheng]

Nope you didn't explain you evaded the question by saying it is different that's not an explanation but just a synonym to sweep it under the rug!!

Well consider what I have described above with comprehension, and see if you can show any similarities:

Anyone suspected of anti-State activities must be shown to have probable cause for being investigated by the relevant agency. Any surveillance or taps must be approved by a judge after evaluating probable cause. Any case developed to a point of detention must result in an indictment to be presented before a court of law with jurisdiction. Any defendant must have access to the evidence presented against him/her, and must have proper legal counsel to defend the charges according to civil and criminal laws that are clearly understood and applied. The prosecution must prove their case by due process, or accept failure.

No one just goes "missing".