Archive for the ‘Pakistani’ 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

Obama, Oil & Pakistan

January 22, 2009
Region Of Concerns

Region Of Concerns

January 22, 2009 

America’s military policy is following its foreign policy which follows the smell of oil. Forget freedom and democracy. That’s for fools. Pakistanis are fooling themselves if they think President Obama will be able to change this. Let’s pray he does. The Karachi-Torkham-Afghanistan supply route and the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan pipeline means that U.S. will have to take effective control of Balochistan, Gwadar and Karachi. This will also help deny Iran and China any stake in their own pipelines across Pakistan. America can’t do this by going to war with a strong Pakistani military. Destabilization is part of the plan, with some margin for unintended consequences. Now you understand the game. By

Ahmed Quraishi | Wednesday, 21 January 2009.

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan—Publicly, America’s most immediate challenge after the government change is Afghanistan and Pakistan. Privately, in Washington’s power corridors, it is oil. Oil, and not al Qaeda, is threatening to knock America off global leadership. President Obama takes over a country whose global economic leadership is threatened by dwindling oil reserves and a dogfight over whatever remains. Oil is running out, fast. And the remaining oil, including new reserves, lie in other people’s lands, closer to Russia, China, Europe and other powers. America’s global supremacy rests on an economic system based on easy access to oil. If someone else gets that oil, America loses. Jon Thompson, an American oil veteran ExxonMobil Exploration Company’s former president, has written in June 2003 that by next decade the world will need 80% more oil than we have today to keep the world going. Luckily for President Obama, his predecessor, George W. Bush, has done an excellent job in: One, securing new oil, and, Two, warding off threat from other oil hungry powers. Under the guise of spreading freedom and democracy, Bush’s eight years saw the biggest expansion of American military bases across the world. And the trail follows the smell of oil. This riddle is as mysterious as the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden. America’s foreign policy was also adjusted to follow the footprint of oil, going where the oil is, be it Angola, Sudan/Darfur, Central Asia, Russia, Colombia, Georgia, Venezuela, and of course Iraq. Somalia is fast becoming the latest battlefield in this secretive global dogfight over oil and transport routes.

In the words of veteran American oil industry correspondent William Engdahl, ‘U.S. military and foreign policy was now about controlling every major existing and potential oil source and transport route on earth […] One superpower, the United States, would be in a position to decide who gets how much energy and at what price.’ The Taliban government was not an enemy of America. It sent delegations to United States and lobbied for U.S. State Department’s attention. Its removal was decided much before 9/11, according to Pakistan’s former top diplomat Niaz Naik, who was told so explicitly by U.S. officials in July 2001. Taliban fell out of favor because they put terms and conditions on the pipelines that American oil giants planned to construct on Afghan territory. Taliban were replaced by U.S. oil consultants Zalmay Khalilzad and Hamid Karzai. Pakistan was and continues to be the next target. U.S. diplomatic meddling has already disturbed the natural progression of the Pakistani government system, leading to instability and creating local players who look to America for support. U.S. military intervention is softening up the country through regular missile attacks and drone flights. The last time this method proved effective was in Iraq during the 1990s.

The chatter in the U.S. think tanks and media about Pakistan’s division along ethnic lines has never been this high. Pakistan has to be subdued in order for American energy and military transport lines to become secure. America needs to secure Pakistani transport routes from the sea to the Afghan border. Balochistan is an interesting case. Destabilizing this Pakistani province disturbs Iran’s plans to lay down pipelines to Pakistan and beyond. The instability also helps destroy China’s chances of using Gwadar, the new Pakistani port city overlooking oil-rich Gulf, to dock its commercial and naval ships. In fact, the entire area between Gwadar and the Sino-Pakistani border is up in insurgencies of all sorts, known and unknown. This is the same route that a future Chinese oil pipeline is supposed to take, linking China to oil supplies from Africa and the Gulf. This entire area was peaceful before 2005, until meddling by unknown actors began from the U.S.-controlled Afghan soil, exploiting Pakistani internal problems. The United States is playing a big role in ‘softening’ Pakistan. It is trying to pitch the country’s elected governments against the military to reduce the military’s ability to decide Pakistani interest on Afghanistan, China and India. Outside meddling is easy thanks to Pakistan’s weak political and government structure. Stopping American intervention in Pakistan, while continuing the cooperative relationship, is the biggest challenge facing President Obama. Will he do it? The facts on the ground are not encouraging. After gaining unprecedented access inside Pakistan – both diplomatically and militarily – it is doubtful that an Obama administration would scale back U.S. gains. Pakistan will have to tell the U.S. that it has legitimate security and strategic interests in the region and that it cannot allow the U.S. to decide those for Pakistan. This includes the shape of the future government in Kabul, the expansion of the Indian role in the region, and the relationship with China. Obama’s Washington has to understand, respect and work with Pakistani interests and concerns. Any other type of relationship won’t work. President Obama needs to wean his policy planners off the idea of reproducing the pliant regimes Baghdad and Kabul. Those things require war. And President Obama doesn’t want another war, does he?

This post is taken from the following:-

http://pakistankakhudahafiz.wordpress.com/2009/01/22/oil-obama-and-pakistan/

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!!!!