My real ‘crime’: Standing up for U.S.-Pakistan relations

[DESERT FIGHTER]

No replies, no comments, no Pakistani is interested - they made up their minds without listening to the accused, without even considering the evidence, all on the basis of established authority promoting and focusing their collective frustrations and hatreds.

And we should trust an american citizen (hussain haqqani) accused of crimes? rather thn the supreme court of Pakistan? or you?

 

[VCheng]

And we should trust an american citizen (hussain haqqani) accused of crimes? rather thn the supreme court of Pakistan? or you?

Well, who appointed him as ambassador in the first place? The executive authority of Pakistan obviously trusted him to do the job, right?

Accusations are nothing unless proven in a court of law.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Well, who appointed him as ambassador in the first place? The executive authority of Pakistan obviously trusted him to do the job, right?

Accusations are nothing unless proven in a court of law.

The executive authority? you mean the "convicted" president who wasnt elected by the public... yes.... does he represent the public of Pakistan ? NO... ive told you several times tht unlike USA we dnt have a presidential system...

As for the accusations... well would you trust an accused person whose being tried in the court of law... claims loyality to Pakistan while takes an oath to protect US interests? As a Pakistani i sure wont... although u surely will...

The question is can an american work for the national interest of Pakistan ?

 

[VCheng]

The executive authority? you mean the "convicted" president who wasnt elected by the public... yes.... does he represent the public of Pakistan ? NO... ive told you several times tht unlike USA we dnt have a presidential system... ..............

Your saying "no" does not mean anything.

Zardari was duly sworn in as President after due election processes carried by the various organs of state charged with those duties. Therefore, he represents the executive power as defined by the Pakistani Constitution. His appointment of HH as ambassador was similarly equally valid.

 

[Armstrong]

Well, who appointed him as ambassador in the first place? The executive authority of Pakistan obviously trusted him to do the job, right?

Accusations are nothing unless proven in a court of law.

Oye, Chengy bhai ! Where do your loyalties lie ?

 

[Pakistanisage]

Supreme court of pakistan is yet another political party.

Are you talking about the Indian Court which whitewashed the Heinous crimes of MASS MURDERER of 3000+ Innocent Indians ( Narendra Modi ) ?

 

[Solomon2]

Oye, Chengy bhai ! Where do your loyalties lie ?

He's got a point, VCheng: if the SC can go after HH for pro-Americanism it can't be long before lesser folk's pro-Americanism is criminalized as well.

Yeah the commission went little beyond its jurisdiction but it is justified by the dodging attitude of haqqani who left pakistan -

Remember what Aristotle said.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Your saying "no" does not mean anything.

Zardari was duly sworn in as President after due election processes carried by the various organs of state charged with those duties. Therefore, he represents the executive power as defined by the Pakistani Constitution. His appointment of HH as ambassador was similarly equally valid.

Tht doesnt justify anything does it? an oath to protect american national interests? dnt joke cheng... ur better thn tht!

 

[VCheng]

He's got a point, VCheng: if the SC can go after HH for pro-Americanism it can't be long before lesser folk's pro-Americanism is criminalized as well.

..................

Please note that the SC merely appointed the commission to determine the authenticity of the controversial memo, nothing else. The rest of the process is yet to be completed.

Tht doesnt justify anything does it? an oath to protect american national interests? dnt joke cheng... ur better thn tht!

I am not joking: the oaths of the President of Pakistan and the ambassadorship were taken by competently elected and appointed personnel according to the Constitution of Pakistan. Only due processes can dislodge them. Please note that mere differences of opinion do not constitute due process.

Where in the oath is USA mentioned at all?

I, (name), do solemnly swear that I am a Muslim and believe in the Unity and Oneness of Almighty Allah, the Books of Allah, the Holy Quran being the last of them, the Prophethood of Muhammad as the last of the Prophets and that there can be no Prophet after him, the Day of Judgment, and all the requirements and teachings of the Holy Quran and Sunnah,

That I will bear true faith and allegiance to Pakistan,

That, as President of Pakistan, I will discharge my duties, and perform my functions, honestly, to the best of my ability, faithfully in accordance with the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the law, and always in the interest of the sovereignty, integrity, solidarity, well-being and prosperity of Pakistan,

That I will not allow my personal interest to influence my official conduct or my official decisions,

That I will preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan,

That, in all circumstances, I will do right to all manner of people, according to law, without fear or favor, affection or ill-will,

And that I will not directly or indirectly communicate or reveal to any person any matter which shall be brought under my consideration or shall become known to me as President of Pakistan, except as may be required for the due discharge of my duties as President.

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

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Please note that the SC merely appointed the commission to determine the authenticity of the controversial memo, nothing else. The rest of the process is yet to be completed.



I am not joking: the oaths of the President of Pakistan and the ambassadorship were taken by competently elected and appointed personnel according to the Constitution of Pakistan. Only due processes can dislodge them. Please note that mere differences of opinion do not constitute due process.

Where in the oath is USA mentioned at all?

Doesnt it contradict with the american oath?

 

[VCheng]

Doesnt it contradict with the american oath?

Both USA and Pakistan allow dual nationalities.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Both USA and Pakistan allow dual nationalities.

Not for members of the parliament or the higher offices?...no wonder rehman malik and mrs isfahani had to renounce their foriegn citizenships.... being a pakistani diplomat with an american passport is pretty conflicting... would he look after our national interests or americas (living in america) + the memo scandal?

 

[VCheng]

Not for members of the parliament or the higher offices?

There is no specific bar codified in law:

"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

 

[r3alist]

No replies, no comments, no Pakistani is interested - they made up their minds without listening to the accused, without even considering the evidence, all on the basis of established authority promoting and focusing their collective frustrations and hatreds.

Haha, you're never slow to libel Muslims (pakistanis) as you have done above, you actually like to promote the idea of the "hate filled" Muslim where ever you can!

People have so much evidence in haqqani they know their minds already.

 

[VCheng]

Not for members of the parliament or the higher offices?...no wonder rehman malik and mrs isfahani had to renounce their foriegn citizenships.... being a pakistani diplomat with an american passport is pretty conflicting... would he look after our national interests or americas (living in america) + the memo scandal?

Dual nationals are governed by the laws of the nation they are present in as a matter of precedence.