sonicboom
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2009
- Messages
- 704
- Reaction score
- 2
SCs resolve unnerves Presidency; US
Friday, April 02, 2010
Media takes on Pak judiciary PPPs local, foreign supporters feeding American media which forced Nixon to quit before trial or impeachment
By Ansar Abbasi
News Analysis
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court of Pakistans latest resolve to get its decision on the NRO implemented after showing restraint for over three months, has unnerved certain powerful elements in the ruling PPP that has unleashed a propaganda campaign against the Supreme Court in general and Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhary in particular.
Background briefings are being given to a select class of pro-government local media persons besides encouraging the foreign journalists to target the countrys superior judiciary and its top most judge. While the majority of the journalists within Pakistan remain steadfast but an influential official in the countrys US embassy has succeeded in getting anti-judiciary stories published in the US media.
A credible source in the Pakistan embassy in Washington told The News that more is expected to appear in the US media against the Pakistani judiciary and the chief justice and in favour of President Zardari, who interestingly has been far more criticised by the international media than within Pakistan.
Interestingly what has already been published in the leading US newspapers against the Pakistani judiciary and its decision on the NRO is flawed, based on half-truths, highly biased and far from the facts. All these biased writings of the US media, which takes pride in the independence of the judiciary and does not tolerate even the slightest corruption charge against any of its public office holders, are hard hitting against the Pakistani judiciary. Most reports are based on unnamed sources including those belonging to the PPP.
Time magazine, which claims to be following the highest standards of journalism, had the cheek to say while quoting an unnamed PPP leader that Nawaz Sharifs recent public objection to the constitutional package was the consequence of the chief justices pressure who, according to the magazine, had threatened Sharif that otherwise the courts would re-open all the cases against the Sharifs.
For most of the leading lawyers, what Time magazine published is nothing but a piece of mere propaganda. Qazi Anwar, the president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, who claimed to have met the chief justice at least twice during recent weeks, is opposed to Nawaz Sharifs view on judges appointment but has also said that the chief justice does not desire any consultation on matters that are the property of parliament.
It is also interesting to find that Time magazine simply missed Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhrys recent appreciation of the work of the Senator Raza Rabbani-led Constitutional Reforms Committee.
Another respected and influential US newspaper, Washington Post, also targeted the Pakistani judiciary on March 30. The newspaper while quoting unnamed analysts talked of political motivations behind the Supreme Courts push to revive the cases against President Zardari.
The newspaper, however, conveniently ignored the fact that it was the 17-member full court that had decided unanimously against the NRO, which was even opposed by the Zardari-led government. The report carried by the newspaper also ignored the fundamental question of implementation of the courts order.
Another Washington-based publication, The Hill, known for its coverage of lobbying activities, talked of A Pakistani coup in black robes written by George Bruno. Reading Brunos piece speaks volume about the idiotic work produced in the US publication merely for the sake of propaganda, under the influence of Pakistani lobbyists paid by the Pakistan Embassy in Washington.
The write-up also talked of the politicisation of the Pakistani judiciary and what it called the stark political ambitions of a formerly respected chief justice. Ignoring that the Pakistani judiciary under Chief Justice Iftikhar is enjoying all time high popularity, the propaganda piece said that attempts emanating from the Supreme Court to openly undermine the elected government of Pakistan not only threaten the future of Pakistans still fragile democracy, but as a corollary, threaten the global imperative of containing terrorism, which remains contingent on a stable, moderate, economically viable and democratic Pakistan, the Islamic worlds sole nuclear power.
Without being aware of the constitutional position and the principles as laid down in the past judgment of the superior judiciary for the appointment of judges and showing complete ignorance of the governments recent admission that it was unlawful on its part to issue notification for the appointment of Supreme Court judges in disregard to the recommendation of the chief justice, The Hill said: Most recently, Chief Justice Chaudhry, contrary to the Constitution of Pakistan, usurped the right of appointment of vacancies in the court from the elected prime minister and president of the country and functionally seized an executive branch of power.
The writer proves that he neither knows the facts of the case nor has any idea of the constitutional provisions in this regard. Yet again showing total ignorance, it said that Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry reaffirmed the right of the court to disqualify members of parliament and the president from serving if they are not of good character and if they violate Islamic injunctions and are not sagacious, righteous and non-profligate. The Hill did not say where the CJP say this but apparently it has a connection with the NRO judgment that was a decision of the 17-member full court and not of CJP alone.
Secondly, what it said about the good character of the MPs, president and other as per Article 62 of the Constitution has altogether different connotations. In its NRO decision, the court said that the every body is of good character, sagacious, righteous and non-profligate unless he is proven otherwise in a court of law. But it seems The Hill does not have the time to go through the detailed judgment of the NRO.
George Bruno introduced himself as the co-director of the University of New Hampshires Partners for Peace programme. He has also claimed to have served as US ambassador to Belize besides serving in the Clinton administration but his work on the Pakistani judiciary shows that his credentials need to be verified.
His article also got space in the New Jersey Star-Ledger besides the Wall Street Journal Asia. In the latters case Lee A. Casey shared a by-line with him.
Contrary to what the US media writes about the Pakistani rulers and the widely respected judiciary, the US takes pride in the independence of its judiciary that has not only refused to accept the question of immunity in the case of President Clinton but also did the same in the case of President Nixon.
It was primarily the US media that forced Nixon to resign without being tried or impeached. The US media also ignores the role of Washington and London in the introduction of the widely condemned NRO, which was promulgated to close down corruption cases against a select class of politicians, bureaucrats and past rulers including the incumbent president of Pakistan.
The Supreme Court of Pakistan declared the NRO void ab initio after the parliament refused to enact it and the government declined to protect or defend it. One wonders if the US media would allow the introduction of an NRO-like legislation in its own country. If not, then why does the US media not like for itself what it finds great for us? It is time the media stopped listening to lobbyists serving vested interests in Washington or to befool the people of Pakistan.
SCs resolve unnerves Presidency; US
Friday, April 02, 2010
Media takes on Pak judiciary PPPs local, foreign supporters feeding American media which forced Nixon to quit before trial or impeachment
By Ansar Abbasi
News Analysis
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court of Pakistans latest resolve to get its decision on the NRO implemented after showing restraint for over three months, has unnerved certain powerful elements in the ruling PPP that has unleashed a propaganda campaign against the Supreme Court in general and Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhary in particular.
Background briefings are being given to a select class of pro-government local media persons besides encouraging the foreign journalists to target the countrys superior judiciary and its top most judge. While the majority of the journalists within Pakistan remain steadfast but an influential official in the countrys US embassy has succeeded in getting anti-judiciary stories published in the US media.
A credible source in the Pakistan embassy in Washington told The News that more is expected to appear in the US media against the Pakistani judiciary and the chief justice and in favour of President Zardari, who interestingly has been far more criticised by the international media than within Pakistan.
Interestingly what has already been published in the leading US newspapers against the Pakistani judiciary and its decision on the NRO is flawed, based on half-truths, highly biased and far from the facts. All these biased writings of the US media, which takes pride in the independence of the judiciary and does not tolerate even the slightest corruption charge against any of its public office holders, are hard hitting against the Pakistani judiciary. Most reports are based on unnamed sources including those belonging to the PPP.
Time magazine, which claims to be following the highest standards of journalism, had the cheek to say while quoting an unnamed PPP leader that Nawaz Sharifs recent public objection to the constitutional package was the consequence of the chief justices pressure who, according to the magazine, had threatened Sharif that otherwise the courts would re-open all the cases against the Sharifs.
For most of the leading lawyers, what Time magazine published is nothing but a piece of mere propaganda. Qazi Anwar, the president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, who claimed to have met the chief justice at least twice during recent weeks, is opposed to Nawaz Sharifs view on judges appointment but has also said that the chief justice does not desire any consultation on matters that are the property of parliament.
It is also interesting to find that Time magazine simply missed Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhrys recent appreciation of the work of the Senator Raza Rabbani-led Constitutional Reforms Committee.
Another respected and influential US newspaper, Washington Post, also targeted the Pakistani judiciary on March 30. The newspaper while quoting unnamed analysts talked of political motivations behind the Supreme Courts push to revive the cases against President Zardari.
The newspaper, however, conveniently ignored the fact that it was the 17-member full court that had decided unanimously against the NRO, which was even opposed by the Zardari-led government. The report carried by the newspaper also ignored the fundamental question of implementation of the courts order.
Another Washington-based publication, The Hill, known for its coverage of lobbying activities, talked of A Pakistani coup in black robes written by George Bruno. Reading Brunos piece speaks volume about the idiotic work produced in the US publication merely for the sake of propaganda, under the influence of Pakistani lobbyists paid by the Pakistan Embassy in Washington.
The write-up also talked of the politicisation of the Pakistani judiciary and what it called the stark political ambitions of a formerly respected chief justice. Ignoring that the Pakistani judiciary under Chief Justice Iftikhar is enjoying all time high popularity, the propaganda piece said that attempts emanating from the Supreme Court to openly undermine the elected government of Pakistan not only threaten the future of Pakistans still fragile democracy, but as a corollary, threaten the global imperative of containing terrorism, which remains contingent on a stable, moderate, economically viable and democratic Pakistan, the Islamic worlds sole nuclear power.
Without being aware of the constitutional position and the principles as laid down in the past judgment of the superior judiciary for the appointment of judges and showing complete ignorance of the governments recent admission that it was unlawful on its part to issue notification for the appointment of Supreme Court judges in disregard to the recommendation of the chief justice, The Hill said: Most recently, Chief Justice Chaudhry, contrary to the Constitution of Pakistan, usurped the right of appointment of vacancies in the court from the elected prime minister and president of the country and functionally seized an executive branch of power.
The writer proves that he neither knows the facts of the case nor has any idea of the constitutional provisions in this regard. Yet again showing total ignorance, it said that Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry reaffirmed the right of the court to disqualify members of parliament and the president from serving if they are not of good character and if they violate Islamic injunctions and are not sagacious, righteous and non-profligate. The Hill did not say where the CJP say this but apparently it has a connection with the NRO judgment that was a decision of the 17-member full court and not of CJP alone.
Secondly, what it said about the good character of the MPs, president and other as per Article 62 of the Constitution has altogether different connotations. In its NRO decision, the court said that the every body is of good character, sagacious, righteous and non-profligate unless he is proven otherwise in a court of law. But it seems The Hill does not have the time to go through the detailed judgment of the NRO.
George Bruno introduced himself as the co-director of the University of New Hampshires Partners for Peace programme. He has also claimed to have served as US ambassador to Belize besides serving in the Clinton administration but his work on the Pakistani judiciary shows that his credentials need to be verified.
His article also got space in the New Jersey Star-Ledger besides the Wall Street Journal Asia. In the latters case Lee A. Casey shared a by-line with him.
Contrary to what the US media writes about the Pakistani rulers and the widely respected judiciary, the US takes pride in the independence of its judiciary that has not only refused to accept the question of immunity in the case of President Clinton but also did the same in the case of President Nixon.
It was primarily the US media that forced Nixon to resign without being tried or impeached. The US media also ignores the role of Washington and London in the introduction of the widely condemned NRO, which was promulgated to close down corruption cases against a select class of politicians, bureaucrats and past rulers including the incumbent president of Pakistan.
The Supreme Court of Pakistan declared the NRO void ab initio after the parliament refused to enact it and the government declined to protect or defend it. One wonders if the US media would allow the introduction of an NRO-like legislation in its own country. If not, then why does the US media not like for itself what it finds great for us? It is time the media stopped listening to lobbyists serving vested interests in Washington or to befool the people of Pakistan.
SCs resolve unnerves Presidency; US
