Archive for the ‘Army’ Category

h1

Injustice In the Court of Law –

February 11, 2014

I would like to call myself a patriotic member of civil society of Pakistan. One who is currently witnessing the state of Pakistan being dismantled piece by piece with the help of a pillar of state called the “Judiciary”. The spearhead of this campaign against Pakistan was started by no one else but the former Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Chaudhry. He took oath under Provisional Constitutional Order, then used his influence illegally for corruption, when questioned by then President of Pakistan Pervez Musharraf – he went to coup the state by using the law society of Pakistan……The battle ended with his restoration.

images

The next episode of one sided battle started in court of law barely a month after Pervez Musharraf’s arrival in Pakistan, the former Chief Justice of Pakistan, Iftikhar Chaudhry, issued a challenge, daring people to step forward and bring up charges against Pervez Musharraf. Can you imagine any CJ of a country behaving in this manner? Iftikhar Chaudhry has been overly politicized and compromised for years and has always viewed Musharraf as his arch enemy. Clearly Chaudhry had nothing else but revenge in his agenda. For a long time the Chief Justice has been demanding the Federal Government to bring forth treason charges against Pervez Musharraf. When the government politely declined – such as for instance the Caretaker Government – the Supreme Court could not take no for an answer and maintained an argumentative behaviour with the Caretaker Government, insisting the latter bring forth treason charges against Pervez Musharraf, thereby allowing the ever so eager Supreme Court to proceed with the matter.

This is very interesting given the fact that in Pakistani law, the Supreme Court has absolutely no right to request – let alone demand – the Federal Government to bring forth charges against any individual or group. The Supreme Court cannot request, demand, pressurize and incite the Government to bring to its attention any case. Thus, by constantly pressurizing the Federal Government to proceed with the treason charges against Musharraf, the Supreme Court has violated the law of the land and exposing its utterly biased attitude.

Now coming to the the case of treason against Pervez Musharraf follows the bizarre logic: In November 2007, Pervez Musharraf imposed temporary Emergency Rule in Pakistan. As a result, some sections of the Pakistani Constitution were temporarily suspended, or held in abeyance. This is said to be treason against the State because Article 6 of the Constitution of Pakistan states that holding the Constitution in abeyance is an act of treason.

Responses

A. Article 232 of the Pakistani Constitution permits the President to impose Emergency Rule under certain situations. As long as the President is satisfied that a situation or a state of affairs exists which warrants Emergency rule, the latter can be imposed.

Article 232 (1)
If the President is satisfied that a grave emergency exists in which the security of Pakistan, or any part thereof, is threatened by war or external aggression, or by internal disturbance beyond the power of a Provincial Government to control, he may issue a Proclamation of Emergency.”
Therefore, imposing Emergency Rule is not akin to “treason” as it is permitted by the Pakistani Constitution. One may disagree with the reasons for imposing the Emergency, yet imposing it is not “treason” or a “punishable crime” even if the underlying reasons are deemed to be weak.

B. In 2007, Article 6 of the Constitution did not state that holding the Constitution in abeyance or suspending it was an act of “treason.” This is the 2007 version of the text of Article 6:
“(1) Any person who abrogates or attempts or conspires to abrogate, subverts or attempts or conspires to subvert the Constitution by use of force or show of force or by other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason.”
In 2010, however, through the 18th Amendment, the above text was altered as follows (italics added):
“(1)Any person who abrogates or subverts or suspends or holds in abeyance, or attempts or conspires to abrogate or subvert or suspend or hold in abeyance, the Constitution by use of force or show of force or by any other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason.”
In 2007, suspending or holding the Constitution in abeyance was not an act of high treason. In 2010, however, suspending and holding the Constitution in abeyance became an act of high treason.
It is legally and rationally ridiculous to retroject this backwards to try Pervez Musharraf – or anyone else for that matter – for having allegedly committed “high treason.”

C. Those who have presumed Pervez Musharraf to be guilty of high treason convey the impression as if Pervez Musharraf was working in isolation, in a vacuum, making decisions on his own, with no other individual present in the scene. This scenario is highly unrealistic. The text of the Proclamation of Emergency Rule itself mentions the “prime minister, governors of all four provinces and with the chairman joint chiefs of staff committee, chiefs of the armed forces, vice chief of army staff and corps commanders of the Pakistan army” who deliberated upon the situation and then requested the President – Pervez Musharraf – to impose Emergency Rule in Pakistan. However, as far as I can tell, no one has been questioned. To successfully implement the Emergency rule, individuals (Civil Servants etc), judges and departments at all levels were required to play their part. None of them have been questioned. In fact, the Law Minister of that time – Zaid Hamid Khan – who played a pivotal role in designing and implementing the Emergency Rule in 2007 is presently a senior member of Nawaz Sharif’s party and was once again appointed as the Law Minister, only to be made to resign shortly thereafter due to the embarrassment caused on account of his role as the Law Minister in 2007!

This trial is nothing but blatant discrimination against Pervez Musharraf and a Violation of Article 25 & 6: By having a go at Musharraf by the Supreme Court and the Sharif Government itself. Article 25 is the equality clause – it calls for a lack of discrimination. Likewise, Article 6 is also not being adhered to. This trial can be an important turning point for Pakistan if one believes in the following quote by Martin Luther King.

injustice quotes

Two forms of blatant discrimination are being carried out:

Another important point in this matter that November 2007 imposition of temporary Emergency Rule is a comparatively minor matter – compared to the actual Military (counter) coup of 1999. The latter is the main issue, not the 2007 Emergency. Were it not for the fact that a Military (counter) coup transpired in 1999, the minor matter of the November 2007 Emergency would not have taken place. In light of the High Treason Act, the application of Article 6 cannot be limited to the 2007 Emergency. The 1999 Military (counter) coup needs to be considered. Even then, Article 6 cannot be restricted to the 1999 Military (counter) coup. The dark era of the Zia regime also needs to be considered, including all prior Military takeovers. According to the High Treason Act, from 1958 onwards, every military coup is to be considered and all involved – directly and indirectly – are to be tried and punished. Thus, by singling out Pervez Musharraf and by restricting the proceedings to the comparatively very minor matter of the imposition of temporary Emergency Rule in November 2007, the Supreme Court and the Sharif Government are violating both Articles 6 & 25 of the Constitution and are also ignoring the High Treason Act, which permits the trial of everyone involved in a coup – whether directly or indirectly – from 1958 onward.

Either all are tried or none are tried. Either all regimes are considered or none are considered. There must be across the board justice to ensure fairness and transparency. Picking and choosing should not be allowed
However, we all know that the reason for Ignoring the 1999 Military (counter) Coup is that Iftikhar Chaudhry was one of the judges who took oath under the PCO order.

Army Officers, Politicians, Judges, Bureaucrats, Journalists all need to be tried and punished if they played any part – directly or indirectly – in supporting, maintaining, defending, strengthening and legitimising a Military takeover/regime.

Oath taking ceremony of Iftikhar Chaudhry

Oath taking ceremony of Iftikhar Chaudhry

• Corrupt and biased Judges such as Iftikhar Chaudhry, who legitimized the Army’s rightful counter coup of 1999, must be taken to court for the matter and justice should be served upon them with full force

• The current two times failed Prime Minister should immediately resign – along with all of his colleagues who aided and abetted the dictator Zia. They must then be brought before the law for violating the Pakistani Constitution multiple times.

Finally, one should recall that Ch. Shujaat Hussain has already put himself forward to be tried in court for treason under Article 6 but the federal government is yet to include his name in the case.

As justice cannot be forced upon selectively –
Author: Asad Baig
Email : Ashbaig80@gmail.com

***Material pointing towards the different Articles of Constitution Pakistan has been researched by Usman Sheikh.***

h1

Kasab evidence insufficient: Gujarat CM Modi

January 20, 2009
Gujarat's Chief Minister Narendra Modi attends a climate change summit in New Delhi in this file photo, September 19, 2008. - Reuters
Gujarat’s Chief Minister Narendra Modi attends a climate change summit in New Delhi in this file photo, September 19, 2008. – Reuters
AHMEDABAD: Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi has criticized the Indian government for asking Pakistanto accept the statement of the lone surviving gunman in the Mumbai attacks as evidence, the Daily Times reported on Tuesday
‘There is no law in our country that would consider the statement of an arrested person before a top-level police official as evidence,’ he was quoted as saying.‘Despite the situation, we are trying to convince Pakistanto consider the statement evidence. This is very much contradictory,’ continued Modi.

India’s ruling Congress party dismissed Modi’s remarks as ‘irresponsible,’ the Press Trust of India reported Monday.

Congress spokesman Shakeel Ahmed told a press conference that Modi’s comments seemed to be from ‘an advocate of Pakistan.’ Ahmed went on to ask for a clarification.

Tensions between India and Pakistan have heightened following the November 26th/27th attacks in the Indian city of Mumbai which left over 170 people dead. India blames elements within Pakistan for the attack while Pakistan has asked for greater intelligence sharing and evidence to aid in the prosecution

Taken from http://www.dawn.net/wps/wcm/connect/Dawn%20Content%20Library/dawn/news/world/kasab-evidence-insufficient-gujarat-cm-modi-yn 

The million dollar question is, what are they playing at? they need to work out their conspiracies against Pakistan better than the Mumbai one. Indian government will never learn would they ?
The world is laughing at them now!!!!
h1

A 2nd round defeat for India!!!

January 16, 2009

The following news shows that India has been patted by its western friends to change its tone towards Pakistan and start acting like adults. Moreover, David Miliband’s on Kashmir has sent shock wave across India. Its looks like India will be planning another misadventure to divert worlds attention from Kashmir issue.

Parnab Mukherjee "A rising voice from India"

Parnab Mukherjee "A rising voice from India"

India softens stance on extradition of suspects
By Jawed Naqvi
NEW DELHI, Jan 15: A news conference on Thursday where Prime Minister’s Adviser on Interior Affairs, Mr Rehman Malik, announced a crackdown on suspected terrorist groups has not gone down too well with India as it wants these matters to be discussed with it, preferably through diplomatic channels.

“We have seen statements in the media by the Interior Adviser of Pakistan assuring India of unconditional support in the Mumbai probe, urging India to use direct diplomatic channels with Pakistan, and saying that Islamabad needs more information from India in order to proceed with its own investigation,” Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee said.

“The material linking the terrorist attacks to Pakistan was handed over formally to the Pakistan High Commissioner in New Delhi on January 5, 2009,” he said. “Instead of being informed through the media, I would be happy to receive a direct response from Pakistan through existing diplomatic channels, and to see Pakistan implementing her words.”

Earlier, softening its stand that Pakistan should hand over the perpetrators of Mumbai attacks and other fugitives it claims are sheltered in Pakistan, India said it would have no objection if they are put through “fair trial” in Islamabad itself.

“It would be ideal if they (Pakistan) can hand over the fugitives from India to us. If that is not possible, there should at least be a fair trial of these fugitives in Pakistan,” Mr Mukherjee was quoted as telling a private TV channel.

He said it should not be a “mock trial” but a “transparent and demonstrated” one. PTI said his statement marked a softening of India’s position that the fugitives should be handed over to face “Indian justice”.

The shift in India’s approach followed comments by visiting British Foreign Secretary David Miliband that Pakistan’s judicial system was robust enough to try terror suspects at home.  

 

Indian soldiers guarding the Line of Control (L.O.C)

Indian soldiers guarding the Line of Control (L.O.C)

Miliband urges settlement of Kashmir: Dispute resolution to deny militants ‘call to arms’

By Our Special Correspondent    http://www.dawn.com/2009/01/16/top3.htm

 

LONDON, Jan 15: Foreign Secretary David Miliband who is currently visiting India believes that the resolution of Kashmir dispute “would help deny extremists in the region one of their main calls to arms”.

In an article in Thursday’s Guardian, Mr Miliband distanced Britain from the terror doctrine of the outgoing Bush administration declaring that the use of the phrase ‘war on terror’ as a western rallying cry since the September 11 attacks had been a mistake that might have caused “more harm than good”.

Mr Miliband wrote a comprehensive critique of Bush administration’s defining mission, saying that the war on terror was misconceived and that the West could not “kill its way” out of the threats it faced.

He said terror was not a monolithic threat but originated from different causes and had different roots and, therefore, different kinds of threats required different responses.

“The idea of a ‘war on terror’ gave the impression of a unified, transnational enemy, embodied in the figure of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. The reality is that the motivations and identities of terrorist groups are disparate. Lashkar-e-Taiba has roots in Pakistan and says its cause is Kashmir. Hezbollah says it stands for resistance to occupation of the Golan Heights. The Shia and Sunni insurgent groups in Iraq have myriad demands. They are as diverse as the 1970s European movements of the IRA, Baader-Meinhof, and Eta. All used terrorism and sometimes they supported each other, but their causes were not unified and their cooperation was opportunistic. So it is today.”

In this contest he specifically mentioned Kashmir and said resolution of the dispute over Kashmir “would help deny extremists in the region one of their main calls to arms, and allow Pakistani authorities to focus more effectively on tackling the threat on their western borders”.

“We must respond to terrorism by championing the rule of law, not subordinating it, for it is the cornerstone of the democratic society. We must uphold our commitments to human rights and civil liberties at home and abroad. That is surely the lesson of Guantánamo and it is why we welcome President-elect Obama’s commitment to close it.

“The call for a ‘war on terror’ was a call to arms, an attempt to build solidarity for a fight against a single shared enemy. But the foundation for solidarity between peoples and nations should be based not on who we are against, but on the idea of who we are and the values we share. Terrorists succeed when they render countries fearful and vindictive; when they sow division and animosity; when they force countries to respond with violence and repression. The best response is to refuse to be cowed.

“Seven years on from 9/11 it is clear that we need to take a fundamental look at our efforts to prevent extremism and its terrible offspring, terrorist violence. Since 9/11, the notion of a ‘war on terror’ has defined the terrain. The phrase had some merit: it captured the gravity of the threats, the need for solidarity, and the need to respond urgently — where necessary, with force. But ultimately, the notion is misleading and mistaken. The issue is not whether we need to attack the use of terror at its roots, with all the tools available. We must. The question is how.

“The “war on terror” also implied that the correct response was primarily military. But as Gen Petraeus said to me and others in Iraq, the coalition there could not kill its way out of the problems of insurgency and civil strife.

“This is what divides supporters and opponents of the military action in Gaza. Similar issues are raised by the debate about the response to the Mumbai attacks. Those who were responsible must be brought to justice and the government of Pakistan must take urgent and effective action to break up terror networks on its soil. But on my visit to south Asia this week, I am arguing that the best antidote to the terrorist threat in the long term is cooperation.”

Its seems like the west is finally getting to understand the importance of Kashmir issue being resolved. I hope the positives come out sooner rather than later…..