Trial of Kayani for not defending Pakistan

[Awesome]

Depends on the region.

So , if you are India border, fire first, ask later.

If at Afghan border, fire, but also ask. (because helis passing by are a everyday occurrence there)

Helis passing by over my checkpost is not since we have not allowed entry into our airspace.

I also want to know, I got fired upon on my base, my people died, now at the Pak Afghan border, they are running to their base, now why can't I fire at their base? If I ask GHQ, why would GHQ say no?

At salala, the military itself brought gunships and called in Air Force, decimated our checkpost, went home and burped telling tall tales how they picked off the Pakistanis one by one over a cold beer.

To that our response is, "We should be careful, we should worry about this and that, America will shoot bolts of lighting from its arse and fireballs from its eyes if we overstep".

 

[ejaz007]

I do not support the trial for following reasons;

1. It is the President who is the supreme commander and it is believed that he stopped Kiyani from acting.
2. Airforce does not come under the command of COAS. Airforce should have acted.
3. It is believed that Pakistan allowed the raid to be conducted.

 

[VCheng]

Parliament gives orders to the federal government. ........

Let's keep the basics correct here: Parliament is the top legislative body. It discusses and makes laws, which are them implemented by the executive i.e the federal government. It does not order the government.

(The judiciary makes sure that all laws and their implementations are constitutionally correct.)

BTW, the Code 663 email is totally unsubstantiated and erroneous on many levels.

 

[Awesome]

Let's keep the basics correct here: Parliament is the top legislative body. It discusses and makes laws, which are them implemented by the executive i.e the federal government. It does not order the government.

(The judiciary makes sure that all laws and their implementations are constitutionally correct.)

The law that it makes, if not followed, Parliament can over throw the government - so its pretty much an order.

Parliament makes a law "Defend Pakistan". Then? If its not implemented, should not the Parliament move for a vote of no-confidence?

1. It is the President who is the supreme commander and it is believed that he stopped Kiyani from acting.

Wishful thinking, Zadari doesn't have the guts to stop or allow Kayani to do anything.

2. Airforce does not come under the command of COAS. Airforce should have acted.

So AF is doing its own thing, Army its own and Navy its own. This is a cop out.

 

[VCheng]

The law that it makes, if not followed, Parliament can over throw the government - so its pretty much an order.

Parliament makes a law "Defend Pakistan". Then? If its not implemented, should not the Parliament move for a vote of no-confidence?

Firstly, the law must pass the constitutional test. Secondly, the mechanism of implementation is up to the government.

Of course, a vote of no-confidence is a parliamentary measure for initiating change of government, and thus a very blunt instrument, to be used with caution.

 

[Awesome]

Firstly, the law must pass the constitutional test. Secondly, the mechanism of implementation is up to the government.

Of course, a vote of no-confidence is a parliamentary measure for initiating change of government, and thus a very blunt instrument, to be used with caution.

I think we have been cautious enough - and if the government refuses to defend Pakistan, vote of no confidence is not only justified but long overdue.

 

[VCheng]

I think we have been cautious enough - and if the government refuses to defend Pakistan, vote of no confidence is not only justified but long overdue.

Let me see if I understand you correctly here: If the parliament says "Defend Pakistan", exactly HOW does the government do that? And on what grounds can the parliament use that as grounds for a no-confidence motion? After all, the government can say that it has prevented a widespread attack by allowing limited operations in certain areas.

I am a bit confused.

=====================

Edit:

Here is a relevant comment from: http://www.dawn.com/2012/03/27/parliamentary-oversight.html

PCNS addressed the task of reflecting the will of the people without any assurance that the executive had the resolve or the capacity to implement recommendations that Washington would push back against even as it repeats sanctimonious clichés about respecting Pakistan’s parliament.

 

[Husnainshah]

Why single out Kiyani? If anything, he's time and time proved to be one of the most professional generals. What General has defended Pakistan anyway?

Having said that, Kiyani has had some serious failures at his end, and must only be tried if other Generals are tried too.

 

[Ark-Angel]

You ELECTED this damn government now you have to deal with it! He is NOT responsible for drone attacks, 26 Nov (Salala) attack, or Abbottabad raid!
Firstly, I do want to know that who said that our fighters had a lock on US heli's. Secondly, even if they had, Kayani is not the one who commands Air Force. Above all, you have an elected government and neither of the four-stars take decisions!

 

[Ark-Angel]

Drones were flying and bombing the $hit out of tribal areas when army was ruling pakistan.There was no civilian govt then,did army shoot the drones down?But instead they allowed shamsi airbase to be made a drone station.Yet the army fanboys claim it all as fault of civilian govt!Even today,army have more than enough influence in civilian govt to pursue them to stop drone strike if they intented.But the fact is they dont want drones to stop,civilian govt dont want it either.

During military rule not more than 5-6 drone attacks took place

If I'm going to fly a remote control UCAV towards DC, you think USAF would call Obama, "Hellooo Obama, may I shoot down this plane that is coming to blow you up?"

Yes! They will!

Don't post crap, do u wanna tell me that :

1. pak army taken permission for Kargil????????

2. pak army takes permission for coup??????

3. If they can do that things that is not under their jurisdiction but can't defend against USA which is their duty????????

We have different commanders right now!

 

[Irfan Baloch]

I move for a trial of General Kayani for:

1. Allowing repeated drone attacks after repeated resolutions from the parliament against them

I support the motion on the first point.

second was beyond his ability and air chief has to answer 2 and 3.

if he does come out and say that he is told to stand down by the president in face of American attacks then president and all the PPP will deny that and drop their ever so useful martyr card and win the sympathy.

 

[Solomon2]

No trial while the COAS is still in office; the precedent would lock in the COAS position as dictator. He must be dismissed first by elected officials to re-establish democratic supremacy.

 

[Jango]

Helis passing by over my checkpost is not since we have not allowed entry into our airspace.

I also want to know, I got fired upon on my base, my people died, now at the Pak Afghan border, they are running to their base, now why can't I fire at their base? If I ask GHQ, why would GHQ say no?

At salala, the military itself brought gunships and called in Air Force, decimated our checkpost, went home and burped telling tall tales how they picked off the Pakistanis one by one over a cold beer.

To that our response is, "We should be careful, we should worry about this and that, America will shoot bolts of lighting from its arse and fireballs from its eyes if we overstep".

As to your first question, GHQ does not tell you to launch warheads into Bagram, you are just a sentry. That decision is not yours to carry out.

And for the second question, the response is not that do not retaliate at all and get killed, but more to not escalate situations. And I am with you on that, that the helis should have been taken care of in one way or another.

But Pakistan can simply not launch warheads into Bagram! PERIOD.

And helis coming over from that side is a common occurrence. Or around the border area. And they are friendly (or at least they were).

The law that it makes, if not followed, Parliament can over throw the government - so its pretty much an order.

Parliament makes a law "Defend Pakistan". Then? If its not implemented, should not the Parliament move for a vote of no-confidence?

You really are pinning alot of hopes on this Parliament.

people who sleep while the session is underway, make a mockery of the rules of parliament, and whatnot. Corrupt and morally empty people, that is the parliament of Pakistan sir ji.

This hogwash is just for public consumption, in the end, things boil down to PM, President and COAS.

I support the motion on the first point.

second was beyond his ability and air chief has to answer 2 and 3.

if he does come out and say that he is told to stand down by the president in face of American attacks then president and all the PPP will deny that and drop their ever so useful martyr card and win the sympathy.

They were really poised to do it a month or so back ( the martyr thing), but credit to COAS, he kept things cold.

 

[Jango]

As Aamir Hussain (think tank) put it:

The smart thing to do with US is to not go into shooting war with a superpower - any superpower at that. That would be sucidal at best.

Pakistan is trying to over-reach its capabiltiy of prjecting power beyond its own borders. It armed forces (Conventional) are designed from outset to defend its own territory and have very limited offensive capacity.

The issue of F-16's or any other western weapon(s) and their capabiltiy only crops up when we start dreaming about going head to head with a superpower in a conventional conflict.

If we ever do get into a situation where we get head to head with a SP, it would be a time to pray hard and unlock the locks on the nukes. Because that scenario would be an end game scenario from our persepctive. They would live to fight another day -- we would not because we can not reach their homeland.

Therefore, this unending scenario building and debating what will happen if we end up in shooting war with US and its allies is pointless and futile exercise to build a doomsday scenario.

Other options need to be explored to AVOID that confrontation.

 

[mdcp]

I strongly support this thread, Muslims always had very brave generals like Hazrat Ali, Khalid bin Waleed, Muhammad bin Qasim, Mahmood Ghaznavi, Ahmed Shah Abdali, Tipu Sultan etc. General Kayani like musharaf is todays mir jaffar and mir sadiq
Their should be strong trials, enquiry for usd bribes and benefits for not protecting pakistan interests and working for usa
If he cant protect his own people than why holding responsibility
If our forces cant protect us from super power than why dont we reduce our defence budject by 1 million percent and spend on poor people