Pakistani courts do not have jurisdiction over FATA - FATA has a special autonomous status in Pakistan (as asked for by its tribal elders when they elected to become part of Pakistan) which allows for the government to authorize military action without meeting any of the requirements that would be necessary for similar action in mainstream Pakistan.
Jinnah was directly involved in giving call to kill Hindus on the Direct Action day. He provided free hand to the Mullahs and more than 10000 Hindus were killed in just one day. Mind it this is all documented so please don't forget your history while giving history lessons to others.
That's the only thing preventing them facing Pakistani courts? If there are terrorists in those territories responsible for crimes against Pakistanis these guys can be apprehended and produced in Pakistani courts. I'm not saying this is what should be done but if someone is going to pretend Pakistan is applying a universal "justice above all else" policy then this is what should be happening. Instead, as you well know, a double standard is taking place.
OK,Then don't cry when we release others, ok!
The alleged leader of the 2008 militant attacks on Mumbai has won an appeal against his detention in Pakistan.
Lawyers for Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi said a government detention order issued last week infringed his rights, as he had been granted bail by another court.
Analysts say he could be freed as soon as the paperwork is completed.
India says a Pakistani militant group carried out the attacks, which killed 165. Pakistan has not convicted anyone suspected of planning the attacks.
Mr Lakhvi is among seven suspects who have been in jail awaiting trial for six years. Nine others have been charged in absentia.
Analysts say the decision to grant him bail came at an embarrassing time for the Pakistani government.
Pakistan's Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif recently promised to crack down on militancy after the Taliban killed 141 people at a school in Peshawar.
Analysis: Haroon Rashid, BBC Urdu
The accused won the appeal after the government failed to submit a detailed reply to the court's queries. A government lawyer sought more time, arguing officials were busy with other pressing engagements so they couldn't prepare a reply. The accused, lodged in Rawalpindi's Adiala Jail, is technically a free man until the government develops a new strategy.
The timing of the court judgment couldn't have been more awkward for the Pakistan government, which is desperately trying to send a message that it has "zero tolerance" to militancy after the Peshawar school massacre. Many fear that the suspension of the detention order limits the government's options. One last hope could be seeking help of the higher court.
Mr Lakhvi was granted bail by an anti-terror court on 18 December, but hours later the government imposed a three-month detention order and said it would appeal against the bail decision.
Mr Lakhvi's lawyers argued in Islamabad's High Court that the detention infringed his rights.
The judge accepted the arguments and quashed the detention order.
The suspect is now technically free to leave jail, but has been ordered to appear in court for every hearing concerning his case.
Mr Lakhvi was accused of heading the militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba, which was blamed for the Mumbai attacks.
Correspondents say the charges brought against Mr Lakhvi and other suspects held in Pakistan were mainly based on a confession given by the only gunman captured alive after the attacks.
Mohammad Ajmal Amir Qasab was executed in 2012.
The attacks severely strained relations between India and Pakistan.
India has repeatedly criticised Pakistan for failing to prosecuted any of the suspects, and has summoned the Pakistani high commissioner to discuss Mr Lakhvi's case.
BBC News - Mumbai attack 'leader' wins Pakistan appeal
Unfortunately, criticism of Pakistani courts is justified.
Why would anyone 'cry'? Are you crying? If the evidentiary requirements are not met then what do you expect the courts to do?
Pakistani courts have refused to hear cases where the crimes may have been committed in FATA citing that very lack of jurisdiction, so this is not some small matter, and it answers your question about why the GoP does not have to present a case in front of the courts or gain court sanction prior to bombing terrorists in FATA. This is the legal and constitutional status of the territory.
They can be apprehended and produced in front of Pakistani courts for crimes committed in Pakistani territory where those courts have jurisdiction. But the GoP is not legally required to obtain court sanction to bomb those terrorists in their hideouts in FATA instead of arresting them and presenting them in front of the courts.
Gandhi gave a call to kill muslims.. Now this is hilarious.. I am sure this must be part of Pakistani curriculum so I don't blame you for this. But for fun sake please point me to some links or any other references which talks about Direct action calls given by Gandhi/Nehru to kill Muslims. Gandhi in fact died because of Pakistan/Muslims only. They gave direct action calls but they were against British not Muslims. Jinnah gave the call to kill Hindus to make a point. Thats nothing but disgusting in the world of sensible people.
I am not advocating court permissions for strikes on TTP. What I am saying is evidence-wise. For example, how airstrike is decide? based on intercepts? we have that against Lakvi. Now, if Pakistan refuses to collect his voice sample in a way that is admissible in court, we would have known the truth. But Pakistani agencies ignored this. Then to say India did not provide any evidence in out-right dishonest.
And kind of military assault carried out in FATA would be authorized by the military chain of command involved, which would weigh the evidence provided. Needless to say, the evidentiary bar is much lower in such active military operations in autonomous territory. The civilian government is only involved as far as authorizing the overall military operations in the territory (they may place restrictions in terms of only allowing ops in some parts of FATA vs all of FATA etc.).
We did. But, like finger print, it needs to be matched with the accused to establish the identity. India did it (assumption) with public speeches of the accused. But that type of matching is not admissible in court. So, you need to get the sample from accused in presence of proper authorities. India can't do that as the accused is not in Indian soil. Pakistani authorities refused to do that.
