Situationer: For Musharraf, reality sinks in

[VCheng]

Holding the judiciary in detention is NOT treason. It seems everyone has got on to the treason bandwagon now without realizing how flimsy and opportunistic this charge is. If Musharraf is guilty of treason for this act of holding the members of the higher judiciary in detention, then why is NS not being held accountable for having members of his party storm the premises of the SCP when Justice Sajjad was the CJP and harassing him and his staff? Was that not an act of aggression against the superior judiciary? As far as the treason charge is concerned, you must know that "Abeyance" was not a treasonous offense in 2007. The law was changed in 2010 long after Musharraf was gone.

So am I blind or do people not realize the hypocrisy and double standards all over this mess?

Secondly, if you think that finding only a former CoAS guilty, leaving alone all the aiders and abettors of his and past military takeovers, and that too in such a shoddy manner is going to act as a deterrence then its nothing but wishful thinking. What it actually will do is that it will ensure that any future military takeover is ruthless to make sure no loose ends are left. This will lead to an unprecedented "bloody" military takeover in Pakistan. All those suggesting that Pakistan has moved on and there will not be another military takeover should realize that this is exactly what was being said in the late 80s and throughout 90s.

In Turkey a precedence was set with the entire military leadership and their abettors in the civil side getting punished or censored. This would be the fair way to go about this by prosecuting the takeover of 1999. Our dishonest government and the motivated judiciary don't have it in them to do the right thing.

I can understand your points perfectly well, including the amendment in Article 6, and the selective nature of the present prosecution.

However, even without that amendment and your fine parsing about the difference in "abeyance" and "suspension", the fact remains that any COAS simply does not have the legal authority to dismiss an elected civilian government, unless he acts extra-Constitutionally, and therefore is guilty of an illegal act that amounts to treason by definition, no matter how justification is attempted under a suitably cooked up Doctrine of Necessity.

The sooner we can come to grips with this and take concrete steps to prevent it, the better off we will be as a nation.

 

[OrionHunter]

musharraf came back because he loves his country.

You really believe that? The truth is that Mush came back to sit on the throne once again! He was punch drunk on power and wanted it back at any cost. Being a commoner is not his kettle of fish. He has smelt power and the trappings that go with it.

Unfortunately things didn't turn out the way he wanted and had to eat humble pie instead!

Alas! The commando has finally bit the dust!

 

[asad71]

Yes, very odd. Now why would a 71 year old man betrayed by half the nation and constantly surviving assassination attempts suddenly fall ill?

It's possible during his visit to Washington DC,NS gave an undertaking to let Mush go. The process was pending to let CJ Chow retire.

 

[SwAggeR]

Defence Minister of Pakistan has said that Musshraf's name would not be removed from the list of person banned from visiting abroad.

 

[Yeti]

He is a fine man he did not have to come back to Pakistan but he chose to! people do not understand such man do not fear anything but put country before themselves alas many of us are to blind to see it.

 

[blain2]

I can understand your points perfectly well, including the amendment in Article 6, and the selective nature of the present prosecution.

However, even without that amendment and your fine parsing about the difference in "abeyance" and "suspension", the fact remains that any COAS simply does not have the legal authority to dismiss an elected civilian government, unless he acts extra-Constitutionally, and therefore is guilty of an illegal act that amounts to treason by definition, no matter how justification is attempted under a suitably cooked up Doctrine of Necessity.

The sooner we can come to grips with this and take concrete steps to prevent it, the better off we will be as a nation.

Well then steps should be taken across the board and must be FAIR, that is the basic premise of the implementation of the law and the resulting justice that comes out of it. Why is he being tried on charges of emergency and not for dismissing an elected government if that is what we want to settle for once and for all?

The doctrine of necessity will remain, even unofficially, and will be exercised for as long as the civilian politicians take governance for granted. Its a fundamental tool that the military, as the guardian of Pakistan's national security, will use if things get out of hand. Over time perhaps with even half-way decent civilian governance, this idea will become obsolete because the Army will let the civilians sort this out, but with the current situation in Pakistan, it cannot be wished away. I am a firm believe that saving Pakistan as a state is more important than the now made to be "sacrosanct" constitution which has been written, re-written, and changed by men like you and I countless time.

Defence Minister of Pakistan has said that Musshraf's name would not be removed from the list of person banned from visiting abroad.

Does it even matter what the DM of Pakistan has to say in this matter? It is a legal issue. Not the DM's concern.

 

[VCheng]

Well then steps should be taken across the board and must be FAIR, that is the basic premise of the implementation of the law and the resulting justice that comes out of it. Why is he being tried on charges of emergency and not for dismissing an elected government if that is what we want to settle for once and for all?

The doctrine of necessity will remain, even unofficially, and will be exercised for as long as the civilian politicians take governance for granted. Its a fundamental tool that the military, as the guardian of Pakistan's national security, will use if things get out of hand. Over time perhaps with even half-way decent civilian governance, this idea will become obsolete because the Army will let the civilians sort this out, but with the current situation in Pakistan, it cannot be wished away. I am a firm believe that saving Pakistan as a state is more important than the now made to be "sacrosanct" constitution which has been written, re-written, and changed by men like you and I countless time.


Does it even matter what the DM of Pakistan has to say in this matter? It is a legal issue. Not the DM's concern.

I agree with you that the steps taken must be fair and across the board. That is the correct thing to do, absolutely.

But please note that the the fundamental "tool" that you describe is NOT for the military to usurp, no matter how noble the proclamations of being the guardians of the nation's security. The military is there to protect the borders. That is its job, not to be the self-proclaimed defender of ideology and all that other BS. Or to be in business.

 

[SwAggeR]

Does it even matter what the DM of Pakistan has to say in this matter? It is a legal issue. Not the DM's concern.

Pakistan's DM has said it Today only and thereby clearly indicating that for now, even on medical grounds he is not allowed a escape route. Two Sharifs of Pindi and Islamabad finally seems to have reached a understanding.

 

[blain2]

I agree with you that the steps taken must be fair and across the board. That is the correct thing to do, absolutely.

But please note that the the fundamental "tool" that you describe is NOT for the military to usurp, no matter how noble the proclamations of being the guardians of the nation's security. The military is there to protect the borders. That is its job, not to be the self-proclaimed defender of ideology and all that other BS. Or to be in business.

I agree its not the military's job to run a government, but TIP, where the civilian politicians also don't do what they are suppose to do. I don't want to go back in history, but every single military takeover has had politicians behind it, egging the military and in some cases begging them to take over. Not that it makes it right, but goes to tell you that in Pakistan, nothing works as it is supposed to. I am not an idealist and as such won't buy into "this is how it should be". This is a long process. Pakistan's integrity is key. Some say without the sanctity of constitution Pakistan is lost, others say the constitution exists because of Pakistan. Take your pick. If the governance at the local level is ok, a ton of these issues go away. For as long as that does not happen, more military takeovers are a distinct possibility.

 

[VCheng]

I agree its not the military's job to run a government, but TIP, where the civilian politicians also don't do what they are suppose to do. I don't want to go back in history, but every single military takeover has had politicians behind it, egging the military and in some cases begging them to take over. Not that it makes it right, but goes to tell you that in Pakistan, nothing works as it is supposed to. I am not an idealist and as such won't buy into "this is how it should be". This is a long process. Pakistan's integrity is key. Some say without the sanctity of constitution Pakistan is lost, others say the constitution exists because of Pakistan. Take your pick. If the governance at the local level is ok, a ton of these issues go away. For as long as that does not happen, more military takeovers are a distinct possibility.

As a fellow realist, why do you think I say the things I do? Because, like you, I know that nothing is Pakistan works the way it is supposed to. Bawey kaa baawa hee bigra hua hey.

Now comes the interesting question: How do we get out of this quagmire, if we can?

 

[blain2]

Put a robust NSC in. Get the PoV of the military in, as much as the uber democrats of Pakistan will cringe on this suggestion, this is a good way to keep the military in the loop and be heard. Victimization of a former CoAS by a government which has had a history of run-ins with previous military chiefs will not go down too well specially, as I have stated above, in the way this prosecution is going on.

I also want to state that not a single Army chief wants to take over. Circumstances are created for such takeovers. The civilian politicians need to be more mature, that won't happen overnight so all in all this is a time consuming process.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

musharraf came back because he loves his country and army is not doing enough to support him because he is not a punjabi elite

Not in the least. He is past his "use by date" and a sheer embarrassment to his Army. They want to move on. But he sticks out like a sore thumb. Till he leaves.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Musharaf has immunity from any court ordeal since he is retired President of Pakistan

He served under the most difficult time for Pakistan 2000-2007 his services were vital for Security

 

[W.11]

Not in the least. He is past his "use by date" and a sheer embarrassment to his Army. They want to move on. But he sticks out like a sore thumb. Till he leaves.

one thing is for sure, he nailed u guys in kargil very hard, your arse still burns haha

 

[SwAggeR]

one thing is for sure, he nailed u guys in kargil very hard, your arse still burns haha

Nailed us , really ??Not again . That's why your PM hurried to Washington ??