Likewise, the CIA does not get tried in civilian courts in the US either.
Can you name a crime that has been committed by the CIA against Americans? If the CIA exceeded its designated mandate it would be tried (as it has been on rare occasions) as well.
Sources: Raymond Davis on trial for an unrelated crime in the US
Ex-CIA operative ordered to trial for belting minister
Jeffrey Alexander Sterling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As I said the CIA rarely makes the mistakes on the level that ISI does because ISI was not afraid of prosecution.
That's the problem with Pakistani courts. The criminals thrive under the current legal system, because the laws drafted are incapable of prosecuting them. Even in mature democracies worldwide, the Judiciary does not get involved in matters of national security. Niaz sahab responded to a similar post of yours on this very issue a week ago, which you didn't satisfactorily respond to:
Can you point out what is wrong with the law, or are you saying that the requirement for evidence should be eliminated from the law?
Niaz Sahab was talking of terrorists in general - and the courts handled the case on merit. The case against Muhammad Abdul Aziz was on Murder, incitement and kidnapping, not for fighting PA commandos. Why wasn't that charge levied?
Instead of rehashing the same old topics, and repeating the same things again, we need to drop some of the rigidity in ourselves, and open our minds to other possibilities as well.
Law does not require empathy of all parties. You are charged with a crime, if the evidence shows you did that crime you are given a sentence. It requires strict adherence, that's it.
I have never said the ISI is free of blame, but most of the blame lies on the civilian government & its ineptness in all areas of life. You are open in your criticism of the ISI, but very silent on the anti-state elements inside Pakistan, responsible for the lack of order & violence/terrorism inside the country.
I am completely supportive of the trial on Memogate involving President Zardari and contempt of court case involving PM Gilani.
President Zardari has immunity from other prosecution by the constitution.
The Army is responsible for protecting the country from foreign threats. The US drone strikes, while killing civilians, mostly kill militants. This is a fact.
It is not a fact, can you name each and every person dead from the attacks and their profiles as terrorists? Then how do you know?
Again the question of the right to a trial comes in. Every Pakistani has a right to a trial with representation.
Drone strikes violate not only the judicial branch of government but also the executive and legislative. Legislation exists in the form of a Parliamentary resolution to not allow drone strikes. If there was parliamentary cover to the drone strikes to kill militants by the use of a foreign military I would still accept. But there is outright rejection of this. If any military chief states he does this because he has deemed what you say as a fact that those people were deemed fit to be killed as terrorist, then he is in violation of the parliamentary resolution, he is committing high treason by such a violation and will open himself to further prosecutions.
Whether the drone strikes stem the flow/momentum of militant attacks in FATA & Afghanistan or not is questionable (it arguably does not do that) & another topic, but it does kill militants for the most part. However, I would argue that the drone attacks do not stem the flow/momentum of militant attacks, it acts as an irritant for Pakistan, an irritant that must be removed. But that does not mean the militancy in FATA should not be addressed.
No one has said that militancy should not be addressed, it should be addressed as per the mandate of the parliament expressed once again by this government in an anti-terrorism resolution in 2008. That has to be dealt with the use of resources of the Pakistan military. Nowhere has anyone agreed to allow foreign military to attack any part of Pakistan soil.
Furthermore, the military has categorically stated many times it would shoot down the drones, if it is given an order by the government. That order has never been given. Likewise, the military has kept the supply routes closed, and is willing to accept whatever decision the parliament makes on the issue. That shows that the Army is accountable to the civilians in Pakistan.
To that cop-out I ask, since when is defending Pakistan not the standing orders of the military? Do you need a presidential order to defend Pakistan against a foreign attack? Kayani has said many times he would shoot the next drone that violates Pak airspace only to sit idly by and watch Pakistan get attacked over and over by a foreign military.
If the government has said not to attack the drones, then I would understand that, but that has never happened. If it has happened, the army should defend itself by citing that order.
I think the courts have done a poor job on this front, & the ISI does a far better job. Look at the worsening law and order situation in Karachi, & else where in the country.
The courts are not the police who have to go around stopping people from obeying the law. The law agencies have to arrest people, collect evidence and bring them to the court for prosecutions.
Why does Pakistan have such a high rate of extra-judicial killings? Because our authorities are incompetent to do their due diligence. Are the courts not implementing the law when they let an accused go free or are they implementing the law? The fault always lies with the lack of due diligence and evidence collection.
In most civilized countries the law states that as long as there exists a reasonable doubt that the person has not committed the alleged crime, he/she must be let go. In most civilized countries to remove all doubt is the responsibility of the law implementing agency.
same applies to u...
