Capital punishment for Musharraf?[merged]

[Ayyub]

Musharraf will be Hanged or Jailed if he is found guilty and fail to defend himself on Nov 3 Emergency Case .First Army Chief to be hanged or jailed .


What will be Army Reaction ???

What will be Politician reaction ???

What will be Awaam Reaction ??

What will be America reaction ??


he should be hanged or jailed or he was right to sack CJ from his post ?


i want your reaction ??? instead of bashing him or CJ .


i m Pro-Musharraf but i think he will be found guilty and will be in jail for 14 years or will be put in Exit control list ???

what will be result of this case ??? :mush

[Golden arm]

Musharraf is still very active part of Pakistan army.
eg his visit to russia and then later on visit by Gen kyani.
Musharraf is being guarded by Pakistani commandos here in UK.
So its almost impossible to hang him or punish him.


And infact if someone is to be hanged, it should be those judges who hanged ZAB.

[Zeenix]

ISLAMABAD: Jamhoori Watan Party (JWP) chief Nawab Talal Bugti on Friday demanded of the government to use its diplomatic channels to put pressure on Britain to hand over ex-president General (retd) Pervez Musharraf to Pakistan.

JWP President Nawab Talal Akbar Bugti, who took over the party leadership after the killing of Nawab Akbar Bugti, was of the view that Musharraf could only be taken to task for what he alleged his ‘crimes’ against democracy and defacing the Constitution.

“Apparently, I don’t see any possibility of Musharraf returning to Pakistan and facing cases in the Supreme Court,” Talal Bugti maintained. The British government, he emphasised should be requested to facilitate the former military dictator’s return to the country. “If Britain hesitates to do so, Pakistan may threaten to sever diplomatic relations with it,” he said. Asked if it would be a prudent move, Bugti said that for national dignity and secure future of Pakistan, there was no harm in mounting pressure on the British government on this count.

[waqar_ahmad]

WEll, according to some reports, Kiyani will stay neutral on this. Lets see how true that is. IF true, mush is going to get a good phainti

[Disco_Lemonade]

its not only about kiyani. its is about the army. forget about getting hanged or jailed, even if he is found guilty of something and thrown out of pakistan, it will be a major setback for the army.

[spectator]

musharraf is our national hero. i dont know why people hate him so much?? look at economic progress in his time.

[zimmz]

musharraf is our national hero. i dont know why people hate him so much?? look at economic progress in his time.

You devalued the word 'Hero'. Are you impressed with suhaib's signature?

[12thMan]

I have a question related to Armed forces and Civilian if Musharaff was still in army:

Can civilian court trail a military official or does it have to be the miliatry (court martial) when acts are done when in uniform? I think civilians can question them but other part is not clear to me. Now court martial is probably out and can someone clarify on that too.

[spectator]

You devalued the word 'Hero'. Are you impressed with suhaib's signature?

i mean nawaz sharif has invaded SC in past and done corruption, look at his MPAs now, benazir party has done corruption. Pakistan society is basically composed of corrupt, dishonest and liars every where. What surprises me that ignoring all of them why are people so thursty of musharraf's blood?? he was a former president of pakistan and army cheif. shouldnt there be some respect for him?? Guy is not a lutera like zardari and nawaz. he bought one apartment in london and people are after him. ofcourse if he has done bad things, he should face justice. who in pakistan doesnt deserve justice?? NS , zardari?? i think to be fair half of population deserves to be hanged due to their deeds. but this thurst of musharraf blood is something special. i never seen so much hate agaisnt any other guy in my life. To me he seems to be a "bali" which is sacrificed to hindu Gods in order to please them.

what is the reason why do everybody wants to drink his blood???

[spectator]

I have a question related to Armed forces and Civilian if Musharaff was still in army:

Can civilian court trail a military official or does it have to be the miliatry (court martial) when acts are done when in uniform? I think civilians can question them but other part is not clear to me. Now court martial is probably out and can someone clarify on that too.

it seems that if musharraf comes in front of you,, you would cut him in to 50 pieces.

[hasanb]

i mean nawaz sharif has invaded SC in past and done corruption, look at his MPAs now, benazir party has done corruption. Pakistan society is basically composed of corrupt, dishonest and liars every where. What surprises me that ignoring all of them why are people so thursty of musharraf's blood?? he was a former president of pakistan and army cheif. shouldnt there be some respect for him?? Guy is not a lutera like zardari and nawaz. he bought one apartment in london and people are after him. ofcourse if he has done bad things, he should face justice. who in pakistan doesnt deserve justice?? NS , zardari?? i think to be fair half of population deserves to be hanged due to their deeds. but this thurst of musharraf blood is something special. i never seen so much hate agaisnt any other guy in my life. To me he seems to be a "bali" which is sacrificed to hindu Gods in order to please them.

what is the reason why do everybody wants to drink his blood???

spectator,i agree 100% with what you said but dont bother...zimmz and hillrock are the haters in chief of musharraf on this forum, the amount of hate they have inside them is quite shocking, havent seen this in anyone else really. waqar_ahmed and insaftak also share their anti musharraf views, but these two at least know how to debate in proper fashion so i respect that.

My advice to you is dont bother entering a big debate with zimmz and hillrock, you might as well be speaking chinese to them because thats how much difference it will make.

[spectator]

You devalued the word 'Hero'. Are you impressed with suhaib's signature?


i was just joking to annoy guys like you ;) musharraf is no different than NS or zardari

[Momo]

he was a former president of pakistan and army cheif. shouldnt there be some respect for him??
No. That alone is no reason for getting respect.
he bought one apartment in london and people are after him.
Exactly. At least five apartments should be allowed.:)
[Actually his most serious crime is not this - I am sure you know.]
ofcourse if he has done bad things, he should face justice.
Well that depends on your definition of 'bad' things. I bet you don't consider high treason such a bad thing.
i think to be fair half of population deserves to be hanged due to their deeds.
No.

[waqar_ahmad]

i mean nawaz sharif has invaded SC in past and done corruption, look at his MPAs now, benazir party has done corruption. Pakistan society is basically composed of corrupt, dishonest and liars every where. What surprises me that ignoring all of them why are people so thursty of musharraf's blood?? he was a former president of pakistan and army cheif. shouldnt there be some respect for him?? Guy is not a lutera like zardari and nawaz. he bought one apartment in london and people are after him. ofcourse if he has done bad things, he should face justice. who in pakistan doesnt deserve justice?? NS , zardari?? i think to be fair half of population deserves to be hanged due to their deeds. but this thurst of musharraf blood is something special. i never seen so much hate agaisnt any other guy in my life. To me he seems to be a "bali" which is sacrificed to hindu Gods in order to please them.

what is the reason why do everybody wants to drink his blood???

Once again, this has been answered so many times now. I just dont understand why you people keep on asking this again and again.

Please, before posting such stuff, go through a million other threads on the same topic, where this very question has been answered a million times.

Why take the debate in circles?

[12thMan]

it seems that if musharraf comes in front of you,, you would cut him in to 50 pieces.Seriously speaking - it doesn't matter to me that he goes on trial or not. It is for the people in Pakistan to decide and I don't live in Pakistan. The only thing I know about is from here and some TV shows that I try to watch couple of time a month. Never liked politics and to me it is time pass and sometimes it is entertaining. I probably won't even watch these shows if there were good dramas to watch. I can only watch the old Waris or UnKahi etc so many times. Better drama or entertaintment in these news shows as I tried to watch couple of dramas and couldn't take them.

Here I hear Sheikh Rashid saying Supreme court has said NRO is also pending. He also mentions attack on supreme court. Off the record but sadly it is not the regular host Abbasi

http://pakistanherald.com/Program/Off-The-Record-July-21-2009-Farhan-Shabbir-1416

[waqar_ahmad]

Seriously speaking - it doesn't matter to me that he goes on trial or not. It is for the people in Pakistan to decide and I don't live in Pakistan. The only thing I know about is from here and some TV shows that I try to watch couple of time a month. Never liked politics and to me it is time pass and sometimes it is entertaining. I probably won't even watch these shows if there were good dramas to watch. I can only watch the old Waris or UnKahi etc so many times. Better drama or entertaintment in these news shows as I tried to watch couple of dramas and couldn't take them.

Here I hear Sheikh Rashid saying Supreme court has said NRO is also pending. He also mentions attack on supreme court. Off the record but sadly it is not the regular host Abbasi

http://pakistanherald.com/Program/Off-The-Record-July-21-2009-Farhan-Shabbir-1416

THese tv shows are very informative. One has to pick and choose though.

A lot of people here, unfortunately, dont watch them, or dont read enough, and yet form their opinions.

[12thMan]

THese tv shows are very informative. One has to pick and choose though....I do pick and choose - the order for me is Talat Hussain show (forgot the name of his show) if he has guests though I saw some of his coverage of NWFP with no quest, Off the Record and Capital Talk. Jawab Deh I will watch if the guest is someone interesting. The topic and guests matter as I have to pick and choose from last 10 days of shows. I mostly will watch Sheikh Rasheed one if he is a guest and a top performer though he mentions certain things and doesn't disclose them (just like a drama episode ending)

[waqar_ahmad]

I do pick and choose - the order for me is Talat Hussain show (forgot the name of his show) if he has guests though I saw some of his coverage of NWFP with no quest, Off the Record and Capital Talk. Jawab Deh I will watch if the guest is someone interesting. The topic and guests matter as I have to pick and choose from last 10 days of shows. I mostly will watch Sheikh Rasheed one if he is a guest and a top performer though he mentions certain things and doesn't disclose them (just like a drama episode ending)
Good choice there. Talat Hussain rocks. And off the record is good only is Kashif Abbassi is doing it.

You should also try Bolta Pakistan.

[12thMan]

A better one I am watching now-
Live with Talat - Issue of Pervez Musharraf - Thursday, July 23, 2009
http://pakistanherald.com/Program/Live-With-Talat-July-23-2009-Talat-Hussain-1432

Looks like the opinion is that start somewhere by punishing someone. Got that from 2 people on the show (PML-N and PPP). Issue was raised that should it be collective punishment (anyone who supported him). One attorney says that in dictatorship (or military dictatorship) the command comes from top so it is not collective. Name of dead generals also came. Later the PML-N guy agrees with the attorney guy that the generals exploited the others (politicians etc). PML-Q guy says that if politicians are supporting the generals and getting bought then they are not innocent either

got disrupted with work while watching it

Then at 17 min senator Envar Baig names a justice who allowed Musharaff to do some things and he should be punished too. Talat Hussain interjected and said if you are going that way then might as well name all the other judges etc. Then he also gets to Zia and Nawaz etc and PML-N says if Nawaz Shariff supported Zia and they have been punished. But I didn't understand how can he be against somebody doing the same and be accountable and leader of party and supported by this PML-N guy.

Drama continues

at 24 min - Anwar Baig (PPP) brings Zia and Bhutto and Talat Hussain asks him something about the judges (who gave the decision) and Anwar Baig stutters and didn't have much answer. Jo kuch huwa judges kay saath....

I am on min 26 now. need a cig break to enjoy this

[spectator]

No. That alone is no reason for getting respect.

Exactly. At least five apartments should be allowed.:)
[Actually his most serious crime is not this - I am sure you know.]

Well that depends on your definition of 'bad' things. I bet you don't consider high treason such a bad thing.

No.

u alleging a former army chief of high treason??? these guys are trained to die for the country. you can argue that what he thought to be good for country was not good but challanging his sincerity is not fair. look at the courage this guy has even after some pakistanis want to kill him. that speaks a lot for our army. it is so easy to take a position and neglect all opposing arguments immediately. i dont have to present those you know them. having said that i dont blame you. it is musharraf who is responsible for creating this hate against him and i think he will be punished for both his sins and for others sins

[Momo]

u alleging a former army chief of high treason??? these guys are trained to die for the country. you can argue that what he thought to be good for country was not good but challanging his sincerity is not fair.
The road to hell is full of good intentions.

I don't give two monkeys about who is sincere or not (only Allah knows that). I focus on people's actions, not their (hidden) intentions.

So did Musharraf, or did he not, overthrow an elected government and hence violate his oath of office?

[MIG]

Islamically speaking, if no blood was spilt - why would Musharaf be put to death. Makes no sense. Sharif is alive and kicking.

[zimmz]

What about people who were sold to USA by him? Will that treason count as blood? Or what about people/children killed under his order?

[Momo]

Islamically speaking, if no blood was spilt - why would Musharaf be put to death. Makes no sense. Sharif is alive and kicking.
Islamically speaking too, fasaad fil ard (in addition to murder) can be punishable by death.

At any rate, Musharraf if hanged won't be hard done by. That's because he will only be punished according to something he took oath on.

But we all know that it is not going to happen.

[spectator]

The road to hell is full of good intentions.

I don't give two monkeys about who is sincere or not (only Allah knows that). I focus on people's actions, not their (hidden) intentions.

So did Musharraf, or did he not, overthrow an elected government and hence violate his oath of office?

yes he did he did lal masjid incident, he did war on terror, he sacked judges and may be other things as well. he should face the court for all this. but there were people who were supporting him and those poeple are from judiciary including iftikhar chodhary, political parties, army. common people gave sweets when NS went. everybody happily presented himself before him to be used. i dont want to go into details but i give you one example. he could say i removed NS and i went to supreme court , they validated me. who would you blame then. SC, musharraf or both???

my point is there are lots of people responsible for this "high treason" and this high treason will not finish until you put them all in to justice including iftikhar choudhry(he is doing great job but he is not an angel. he has allegidly helped his son using his power, validated musharraf. Law doesnt say if you have done a bad thing and then you do good things then you cannot or should not be put to trail for your bad things) Similarly i believe musharraf has done sins but he has done good things as well. i say bring everyone to justice without the hypocracy. you are willing to neglect iftikhar's bad doings and may be you can neglect musharaff's bad stuff and focus on good points. Bottom line is hamam main sab nangay hain. trail everyone coz they are equally responsible or to a degree or make musharraf "balli" so that baqi sab logon kay bhi gunnah dhul jain.

now the argument that musharraf is just a starting point .. all will be punished later.. ok lets see this drame ... :)

[spectator]

What about people who were sold to USA by him? Will that treason count as blood? Or what about people/children killed under his order?

no defence whatsoever for killing children in mosque or selling people to USA. biggest crimes. my point is that we have hypocracy. we pick and choose when condemning poeple. how many innocent children and adults ISI has killed in balochistan in last 60 years. anybody wants ISI chief to be hanged for that?? were those children lesser than those from mosque??? is that a lesser crime than what musharraf did??? how many innocent people talibans are killing. is that a lesser crime than musharraf crime?? how many people ISI has captured from balochistan. is that lesser than what musharraf did??

in 1971 war your army allegidly rapped millions of girls in your own country. is that lesser crime than musharraf?? why there is not more hate against those army people as compared to musharraf??? dont all of them deserve to be dead before musharraf??? you are against musharraf because what musharraf did affected you personally directly or indirectly.

musharraf go to hell... but i am amused at this drama.

[zimmz]

^^^ This is really a bad argument spectator. You joined many others who are saying the same thing that first hang such and such person only than touch busharaf. This is one reason our nation do not progress. For once start from someone! This will automatically set the precedence! If we keep arguing that hang xyz first then keep on dreaming for justice in this country.

[hasanb]

^^^ This is really a bad argument spectator. You joined many others who are saying the same thing that first hang such and such person only than touch busharaf. This is one reason our nation do not progress. For once start from someone! This will automatically set the precedence! If we keep arguing that hang xyz first then keep on dreaming for justice in this country.

youre talking about justice? ok fair enough...how is it justice if well over half the bench that tries musharraf will have been directly affected by his actions? Dont you think there would be a hint of vengeance there? I mean the CJ himself cant be impartial.

It doesnt matter how upstanding these people are, in law the jury?bench has to be 100% impartial and neutral, its like having the the mother of someone apparently murdered in the jury...how can you expect a fair trial there?

So this drama has just begun, the very legality of this bench is going to questioned first of all...this whole case is going to get very very messy with a lot of people being dragged in, its not going to be just straightforward and im sure even you will agree with me on that zimmz.

[Mohsin]

There is no chance of him being hanged neither should there be....there are many many others in the queue which should be hanged *cough*altaf hussain...zardari*cough* plus the army would have none of it...wouldn’t be good for them at all.

He should be imprisoned...............he'll probably be deported for x number of years.

[Momo]

plus the army would have none of it...wouldn’t be good for them at all.
What if it's good for the country, never mind the army?

[hasanb]

What if it's good for the country, never mind the army?

fair point but in reality you know as well that no govt can cross the army in pakistan

[Momo]

spectator:

The only way we can hope that no more military saviours will come (uninvited) to 'save' us is to hang a general who has done so. More than interested in punishing the guilty ones for the past, I am interested in the future deterrence.

[zimmz]

My advice to you is dont bother entering a big debate with zimmz and hillrock, you might as well be speaking chinese to them because thats how much difference it will make.

:jm


youre talking about justice? ok fair enough...how is it justice if well over half the bench that tries musharraf will have been directly affected by his actions? Dont you think there would be a hint of vengeance there? I mean the CJ himself cant be impartial.

It doesnt matter how upstanding these people are, in law the jury?bench has to be 100% impartial and neutral, its like having the the mother of someone apparently murdered in the jury...how can you expect a fair trial there?


Who will or should be involve in trial is a separate topic. You can't bring in this point to argue against Musharraf trial.

Anyway it's not that there is any doubt in what musharaf did or if his actions are hidden from public so that CJ can make biased decisions. It will be more like formality or what be call "through proper channel". Bring in any Judge and the result is expected to be same for what musharaf did.

[spectator]

^^^ This is really a bad argument spectator. You joined many others who are saying the same thing that first hang such and such person only than touch busharaf. This is one reason our nation do not progress. For once start from someone! This will automatically set the precedence! If we keep arguing that hang xyz first then keep on dreaming for justice in this country.


i am not saying first hang others. i am saying hang musharraf if you want .. nobody will shed tears in pakistan for him.

if anybody goes against people's wishes as much as musharraf did he will be hanged (i wont say deserve to be hanged coz i dont believe anybody should be hanged in the world)

I am sure you must be from punjab or nwfp. what i am saying is that let this time awaken us more so that when we hear some other pakistani community like balochis in same situation we remember their pain as much as we suffer and raise voice for them.

[Momo]

fair point but in reality you know as well that no govt can cross the army in pakistan
That's unfortunately true, that army interests always prevail over Pakistani interests (which is likely to continue), and that is the reason for the sorry state we find ourselves in.

The study of how we came to be in this situation (army being stronger than civilians) will be educative.

[insaftak]

Hanged, need to teach lesson to these adventurous generals to just stay in their head quarters and do their job which is to protect people of pakistan instead of ruling them. they could come to politics, once they have retired and try fixing the country then.

[Mohsin]

What if it's good for the country, never mind the army?

True BUT 40odd years of military rule in 62 years of Independence has made the Army a major major player on the political front no doubt?

Also hanging a man who still enjoys a very wide support base throughout Pakistan would not be a good idea; and like i said.....when you have real ghaddar's like Altaf Hussain and Asif Ali Zardari on the loose someone like Musharraf (who i dont consider a ghaddar) is very very small and needless fish.

[insaftak]

True BUT 40odd years of military rule in 62 years of Independence has made the Army a major major player on the political front no doubt?

Also hanging a man who still enjoys a very wide support base throughout Pakistan would not be a good idea; and like i said.....when you have real ghaddar's like Altaf Hussain and Asif Ali Zardari on the loose someone like Musharraf (who i dont consider a ghaddar) is very very small and needless fish.

wide support base in pakistan, you have to be kidding me, there is no wide support base for musharaf, he is having trouble finding people to defend him in court

[hasanb]

:jm




Who will or should be involve in trial is a separate topic. You can't bring in this point to argue against Musharraf trial.

Anyway it's not that there is any doubt in what musharaf did or if his actions are hidden from public so that CJ can make biased decisions. It will be more like formality or what be call "through proper channel". Bring in any Judge and the result is expected to be same for what musharaf did.

yeah its really not that simple, since musharrafs actions were validated by the supreme court of that time. It is another matter that SC could be deemed a proxy puppet court that musharraf installed, nonetheless it was the SC of the time...so its not that easy nor will it be a formality. There were many other personalities involved and in fact pre 2005 similar decisions made by musharraf were approved by iftikhar chadhry himself.

This point amongst a whole host of others can be brought in and the waters would start to get very very muddy indeed. To anti musharraf people this case is open and shut...sure once again let me say i respect your point of view. However dont forget there are actually quite a few people who hold a very different opinion to yours.

When you get into legal cases its like opening pandoras box, you can pull out all sorts of counter claims and suits...thats exactly what will happen.

[hasanb]

wide support base in pakistan, you have to be kidding me, there is no wide support base for musharaf, he is having trouble finding people to defend him in court

Mate i always respect other opinions you really need to do the same. You will be very surprised that there is in fact a very large part of pakistani society that does support musharraf. They are not the especially vocal type of people but they are there nonetheless. I do request you to be a bit more respectful to the opinions of others rather than just rubbishing them.

We know that the tide is against us right now just as it was against NS in 1999, we are not living in a fantasy world however we do exist.

[zimmz]

I am sure you must be from punjab or nwfp. what i am saying is that let this time awaken us more so that when we hear some other pakistani community like balochis in same situation we remember their pain as much as we suffer and raise voice for them.

I do not relate my self to particular province. Doesn't matter where I live or born in Pakistan at the end of the day I am Pakistani.

I feel equally for every Pakistani died unjustly. The ISI you are talking about works pretty much under Army and Musharaf was the leader when Army was killing people in Baluchistan. If the top leaders in Army and ISI are tried for once no one will dare to repeat those atrocities ever.

[Momo]

True BUT 40odd years of military rule in 62 years of Independence has made the Army a major major player on the political front no doubt?
Yes, and that ratio of 40:22 can only be restored to a sane figure by some drastic steps. Otherwise you can be sure it will be 80:44 after 124 years post independence (which will not be a good thing surely?).
Also hanging a man who still enjoys a very wide support base throughout Pakistan would not be a good idea; and like i said.....when you have real ghaddar's like Altaf Hussain and Asif Ali Zardari on the loose someone like Musharraf (who i dont consider a ghaddar) is very very small and needless fish.
I am not a fan of AH and AZ either. But this military adventurism has to stop now. One general hanged will do the trick.

Once military intervention stops, our politicians are bound to improve (even if it is a slow process like all other countries).

[suhaib]

Mate i always respect other opinions you really need to do the same. You will be very surprised that there is in fact a very large part of pakistani society that does support musharraf. They are not the especially vocal type of people but they are there nonetheless. I do request you to be a bit more respectful to the opinions of others rather than just rubbishing them.

We know that the tide is against us right now just as it was against NS in 1999, we are not living in a fantasy world however we do exist.


according to insaftak the world begins and ends with imran khan, there is no other opinion except for his.

[Momo]

You will be very surprised that there is in fact a very large part of pakistani society that does support musharraf. They are not the especially vocal type of people but they are there nonetheless.
Musharraf having a support base or not has absolutely no bearing on the topic of this thread. When a criminal is punished it is not considered how popular he is back in his village, is it?

[hasanb]

Yes, and that ratio of 40:22 can only be restored to a sane figure by some drastic steps. Otherwise you can be sure it will be 80:44 after 124 years post independence (which will not be a good thing surely?).

I am not a fan of AH and AZ either. But this military adventurism has to stop now. One general hanged will do the trick.

Once military intervention stops, our politicians are bound to improve (even if it is a slow process like all other countries).

When musharraf came to power in 1999 he had the capacity and at that time enough support to hang nawaz sharif if he wanted to. He could have done this very very easily....he chose not to do it, and I agree with him. No matter who the person is and how much I hate him I would never advocate killing them.

Why do you think there is this difference between musharraf supporters and the other now calling for that very same person to be killed?

[insaftak]

according to insaftak the world begins and ends with imran khan, there is no other opinion except for his.

according to shuaib the world begins and ends with General pervez Constitutional violator Musharaf, there is no other opinion except for his,




i disagree with imran khan on drones issue, i want imran khan to come out and demand army/gov't shoot these drones, but he has gone quiet on that, very disturbing.

[hasanb]

Musharraf having a support base or not has absolutely no bearing on the topic of this thread. When a criminal is punished it is not considered how popular he is back in his village, is it?

well no...but i was just replying to insaftak, i never really claimed this should have a bearing on a trial.

[insaftak]

Mate i always respect other opinions you really need to do the same. You will be very surprised that there is in fact a very large part of pakistani society that does support musharraf. They are not the especially vocal type of people but they are there nonetheless. I do request you to be a bit more respectful to the opinions of others rather than just rubbishing them.

We know that the tide is against us right now just as it was against NS in 1999, we are not living in a fantasy world however we do exist.

i am pretty sure they exist, my brother is one of them too.

[12thMan]

Bhaiyon stress na lo. watch the video in post #19. I have update some comments too. Din acha guzray ga

[hasanb]

i am pretty sure they exist, my brother is one of them too.

god your house must have some lively debates :))

[suhaib]

according to shuaib the world begins and ends with General pervez Constitutional violator Musharaf, there is no other opinion except for his,




i disagree with imran khan on drones issue, i want imran khan to come out and demand army/gov't shoot these drones, but he has gone quiet on that, very disturbing.


firstly my name is suhaib not shuaib, so learn to spell first.

secondly i have never blindly supported musharraf like you are blindly in love with imran khan, even your name is devouted to imran khan. LOL, i clearly support musharraf as a leader i havnt given my life to him like you have done with ik

[spectator]

well no...but i was just replying to insaftak, i never really claimed this should have a bearing on a trial.

bhens kay agay been bajana fazool hai.

its very difficult to logically argue with someone who has already taken sides.. there is no constructive discussion. its just protection of their sides

[insaftak]

god your house must have some lively debates :))

He is not a Tehrek- Insaf hater, so we get by, he also acknowledges that musharaf killed all his reputation in last two year of his term.

[Momo]

When musharraf came to power in 1999 he had the capacity and at that time enough support to hang nawaz sharif if he wanted to. He could have done this very very easily....he chose not to do it, and I agree with him. No matter who the person is and how much I hate him I would never advocate killing them.

Why do you think there is this difference between musharraf supporters and the other now calling for that very same person to be killed?
hasan, it's not about you spared X then, so you should be spared now.

NS was justified (legally, morally, in every sense) to fire Musharraf when he did so. Why should Musharraf have hanged NS exactly? (although I agree that had he wanted to he could pretty easily have).

People are asking for Mush to be hanged because that is what is the punishment for such cases according to the law of the land. And it is not even personal (at least not in my case). It's to ensure that no more adventurous generals 'arrive' wearing a sherwaani with the dreaded words 'mere aziz hamwatanon....'

[Mohsin]

Yes, and that ratio of 40:22 can only be restored to a sane figure by some drastic steps. Otherwise you can be sure it will be 80:44 after 124 years post independence (which will not be a good thing surely?).

I am not a fan of AH and AZ either. But this military adventurism has to stop now. One general hanged will do the trick.

Once military intervention stops, our politicians are bound to improve (even if it is a slow process like all other countries).

Fair enough but this is just making Musharraf a lamb to the slaughter? You have the current COAS General Ashfaq Pervez Kiyani saying that the army will stay out of politics and stay to what they know best...defending our borders yes?
I think the way Musharraf was 'kicked off' his seat in such a way is in itself a warning to any future generals who want to make any adventures. No other dictator, be it Zia ul Haq, Yahya Khan or Ayub Khan were out of the picture in such a way as to which Musharraf was....the vast long marches showed that this would never be allowed again.


Musharraf having a support base or not has absolutely no bearing on the topic of this thread. When a criminal is punished it is not considered how popular he is back in his village, is it?

As for the support base pov, my initial point was that striking Musharraf's supporters would do no good to the country. A country which is fragile atm with various issues cannot afford people taking to the streets protesting at their 'leader' being hanged.

Let him serve it out in jail......it'll be a much stronger message to future generals seeing a living dictator suffer because of what he did.
It'll be a living, breathing warning against it rather then a dead body.

[spectator]

chill guys chill... you are making your blood boil over two guys who you havent probably even seen

[Momo]

chill guys chill... you are making your blood boil over two guys who you havent probably even seen
I wish I could say this about Mush.

[insaftak]

firstly my name is suhaib not shuaib, so learn to spell first.

secondly i have never blindly supported musharraf like you are blindly in love with imran khan, even your name is devouted to imran khan. LOL, i clearly support musharraf as a leader i havnt given my life to him like you have done with ik

my name is devouted to tehrek insaf which include people like Dr. ALVI, Shireen Mazari, sarfraz cheema, Zahid kazmi, Hamid Khan Admiral javed iqbal, Also, i didn't know if this forum was an english class and i would be graded on how i spell.

[Momo]

its very difficult to logically argue with someone who has already taken sides.. there is no constructive discussion. its just protection of their sides
So the only fair debator is that one who has yet to take any side? Well in that case, one should stay uncommited to all issues till the day one dies, eh?

[hasanb]

hasan, it's not about you spared X then, so you should be spared now.

NS was justified (legally, morally, in every sense) to fire Musharraf when he did so. Why should Musharraf have hanged NS exactly? (although I agree that had he wanted to he could pretty easily have).

People are asking for Mush to be hanged because that is what is the punishment for such cases according to the law of the land. And it is not even personal (at least not in my case). It's to ensure that no more adventurous generals 'arrive' wearing a sherwaani with the dreaded words 'mere aziz hamwatanon....'

Although i disagree with you here, quite a bit actually, I do know that its not anything personal in your case. However if you do a bit of research on NS and his clan youll find that they very much operate on vengeance...the very reason they are filing this case is for revenge. This is not the right way to do things in my opinion.

I dont think there is any will at all in Pakistan bar the PML-N to kill musharraf. Not that they want him back in power or something right now, but if you asked an opinion, most pakistanis are likely to say just keep him out of pakistan for X amount of years....similar to NS again.

[spectator]

I wish I could say this about Mush. i am sure when musharraf will be hanged, you will see his dead body and check his nabz again in order to be sure..

[hasanb]

chill guys chill... you are making your blood boil over two guys who you havent probably even seen

I have actually met musharraf, not any of the other leaders being discussed though.

[suhaib]

my name is devouted to tehrek insaf which include people like Dr. ALVI, Shireen Mazari, sarfraz cheema, Zahid kazmi, Hamid Khan Admiral javed iqbal, Also, i didn't know if this forum was an english class and i would be graded on how i spell.

i dnt care how you spell or how your english is but that does make a excuse to twist other peoples statements to benefit your arguements and how hard is it to spell my name which is right infront of you.

[hasanb]

i am sure when musharraf will be hanged, you will see his dead body and check his nabz again in order to be sure..

werent you just asking everyone to chill? lol

[insaftak]

Although i disagree with you here, quite a bit actually, I do know that its not anything personal in your case. However if you do a bit of research on NS and his clan youll find that they very much operate on vengeance...the very reason they are filing this case is for revenge. This is not the right way to do things in my opinion.

I dont think there is any will at all in Pakistan bar the PML-N to kill musharraf. Not that they want him back in power or something right now, but if you asked an opinion, most pakistanis are likely to say just keep him out of pakistan for X amount of years....similar to NS again.


Hasan, Pml(N) isn't the only party or person that is filing cases against him, the reason i want musharaf to be punished is simple, so no army general ever decides to throw out an elected gov't and decides to make it a one man show, we could also thank musharaf for giving us 58-2b, which took all the powers away from prime minister and gave it to president, there are so many things that he did wrong that he can't be forgiven for.

[insaftak]

i dnt care how you spell or how your english is but that does make a excuse to twist other peoples statements to benefit your arguements and how hard is it to spell my name which is right infront of you.

i have a cousin who spells his name that way, so i'm sorry if my my spelling mistakes have hurt u,

[hasanb]

Hassan, Pml(N) isn't the only party or person that is filing cases against him, the reason i want musharaf to be punished is simple, so no army general ever decides to throw out an elected gov't and decides to make it a one man show, we could also thank musharaf for giving us 58-2b, which took all the powers away from prime minister and gave it to president, there are so many things that he did wrong that he can't be forgiven for.

Well Nawaz did the opposite, he stripped the president of all his powers until he was nothing more than a puppet bowing to his every wish. So its the same thing. People need to understand this badmaash was even more of a dictator under the guise of democracy.

[zimmz]

It's to ensure that no more adventurous generals 'arrive' wearing a sherwaani with the dreaded words 'mere aziz hamwatanon....'

:))

[spectator]

So the only fair debator is that one who has yet to take any side? Well in that case, one should stay uncommited to all issues till the day one dies, eh?

its about blinding your eyes and mind and surrendering yourself to emotions.

i understand little bit of this musharraf hate thinking and i feel sincere sympathy for you guys. i hope this matter is resolved soon rather than later.

[Mohsin]

Well Nawaz did the opposite, he stripped the president of all his powers until he was nothing more than a puppet bowing to his every wish. So its the same thing. People need to understand this badmaash was even more of a dictator under the guise of democracy.

Isn't it the Prime Minister who has all the powers anyway? He didnt strip any powers?

[insaftak]

Well Nawaz did the opposite, he stripped the president of all his powers until he was nothing more than a puppet bowing to his every wish. So its the same thing. People need to understand this badmaash was even more of a dictator under the guise of democracy.

that was part of the original constitution that was changed by another dictator zia ul haq, constitution gives parliament every right to amend constitution,

[Momo]

its about blinding your eyes and mind and surrendering yourself to emotions.

i understand little bit of this musharraf hate thinking and i feel sincere sympathy for you guys. i hope this matter is resolved soon rather than later.
Sympathy? Do you mean if this issue is not resolved soon we will go on some sort of a hunger strike (what you people call a maran berth or something)?

Rest assured, your concern is misplaced. :asif

[hasanb]

Isn't it the Prime Minister who has all the powers anyway? He didnt strip any powers?

At that point the president could dissolve parliament and order fresh elections if it seemed the govt was being overly corrupt etc it was a crucial check and balance on the govt. Also it was the president that appointed the service chiefs and COAS.

All these powers were stripped from the president by NS meaning that by default he became a supreme ruler with no checks or balances on him whatsoever.

[Mohsin]

At that point the president could dissolve parliament and order fresh elections if it seemed the govt was being overly corrupt etc it was a crucial check and balance on the govt. Also it was the president that appointed the service chiefs and COAS.

All these powers were stripped from the president by NS meaning that by default he became a supreme ruler with no checks or balances on him whatsoever.

When did he strip these powers Hasan, was it his first government (1990) or second (1997)?

[spectator]

Sympathy? Do you mean if this issue is not resolved soon we will go on some sort of a hunger strike (what you people call a maran berth or something)?

Rest assured, your concern is misplaced. :asif

wot is maran berth??? some kind of train dabba??

seriously man... chill out and see your posts. seems like you want to eat musharrafs gost in dinner tomorrow. dont get so emotional

[hasanb]

When did he strip these powers Hasan, was it his first government (1990) or second (1997)?

It was during his second term and it was only one of his many misdemeanours during that term (including attacking the supreme court may i add). I posted about this somewhere else, let me see if i can dig that post up.

[Ayyub]

Hanged, need to teach lesson to these adventurous generals to just stay in their head quarters and do their job which is to protect people of pakistan instead of ruling them. they could come to politics, once they have retired and try fixing the country then.


people like u only know what our leader should do but don't know whats their duty ...i salute ur ignorance :14:

[Mohsin]

It was during his second term and it was only one of his many misdemeanours during that term (including attacking the supreme court may i add). I posted about this somewhere else, let me see if i can dig that post up.

It was the 13th Amendment...it was supported by both the government AND the opposition, plus it was passed unanimously. Also it got rid of 58(2)(b).
I'm not complaining about what Nawaz Sharif did, i dont see a whole lot wrong with it.

[hasanb]

Mohsin here you go, here is a lost of quite a few of NS's misdemeanors during his 'democratic' reign over Pakistan:

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showpost.php?p=2030510&postcount=13

Btw forget about that article 6 thing, I already acknowledged that i got that part a little confused. However I maintain that NS should be tried for high treason if not through article 6 then certainly through other avenues.

Just read your above post...well if you see nothing wrong with it then its your opinion fairplay. However in my view i think he was just chopping down any opposition that could be in his way...it was pretty obvious really.

[Momo]

wot is maran berth??? some kind of train dabba??
I have a feeling you are not as anjaan as you appear to be. :))

[12thMan]

At that point the president could dissolve parliament and order fresh elections if it seemed the govt was being overly corrupt etc it was a crucial check and balance on the govt. Also it was the president that appointed the service chiefs and COAS.

All these powers were stripped from the president by NS meaning that by default he became a supreme ruler with no checks or balances on him whatsoever.Nawaz from what I get was a supporter of a dictator or he became what he became under a dictator. Now to the post is that the power from what I understand was given to the President by Zia or some other military ruler before. It was not supposed to be as the system is Parlimentary and there is Prime Minister, Parliment/senate and Supreme court to check each other. Now the matter is different when the Parliment may also be full of corrupt people (so they cannot be counted on other than being on talk shows) or ones who have no say and they just follow the leader(s). The ones who make noise are not in government

[insaftak]

people like u only know what our leader should do but don't know whats their duty ...i salute ur ignorance :14:

ignorance, what ignorance, care to elaborate

[insaftak]

Nawaz from what I get was a supporter of a dictator or he became what he became under a dictator. Now to the post is that the power from what I understand was given to the President by Zia or some other military ruler before. It was not supposed to be as the system is Parlimentary and there is Prime Minister, Parliment/senate and Supreme court to check each other. Now the matter is different when the Parliment may also be full of corrupt people (so they cannot be counted on other than being on talk shows) or ones who have no say and they just follow the leader(s). The ones who make noise are not in government

I believe Zia was responsible for giving 58-2b to president, this is one reason i hate dictatorship

[hasanb]

I believe Zia was responsible for giving 58-2b to president, this is one reason i hate dictatorship

As much as I hate Zia, surely this wasnt a bad move? I mean if you hate dictatorship then surely some checks and balances at least should be given to the president? As opposed to all the power vested in just one branch of the executive. what do you think?

[Ayyub]

I believe Zia was responsible for giving 58-2b to president, this is one reason i hate dictatorship


Dictators give us Economy in good condition but what has civillian has given us to be happy nothing ...

i salute ur ignorance :14:

[insaftak]

As much as I hate Zia, surely this wasnt a bad move? I mean if you hate dictatorship then surely some checks and balances at least should be given to the president? As opposed to all the power vested in just one branch of the executive. what do you think?

President has zero power in india and it works perfectly there

[insaftak]

i salute ur ignorance :14:

this doesn't even deserve a response, what posting a fact had to do with my ignorance

[hasanb]

President has zero power in india and it works perfectly there

We need to stop comparing us to india in my opinion, or any other country for that matter, we are a very unique and different country, with a very unique set of people with very unique attitudes. Therefore we need to tailor our system accordingly.

[insaftak]

We need to stop comparing us to india in my opinion, or any other country for that matter, we are a very unique and different country, with a very unique set of people with very unique attitudes. Therefore we need to tailor our system accordingly.

just giving you an alternative, look i would have no problem if it was done by elected gov't and people were for it, Both of major parties PPP, PML (N) are against 58-2b.

[suhaib]

President has zero power in india and it works perfectly there

what works perfectly in india? it probably has the worst form of governace in the world.

[insaftak]

what works perfectly in india? it probably has the worst form of governace in the world.

worse than pakistan, i highly doubt that,

[suhaib]

worse than pakistan, i highly doubt that,

the problem with indias system is that it rejects minoritys, in pakistan atleast its not that bad as the dalits or the chirstians in assam, muslims in kashmir, tamils or naxlites, i will take pakistans system over that anyday.

[Mohsin]

worse than pakistan, i highly doubt that,

You'd be very surprised.

[12thMan]

Pakistan has to go to Presidential government and move away from the Parlimentary stuff from what I can see. Gillani who is the leader is nobody. President Zardari and before that Musharaff making the decisions. But can Pakistan do it? Looks to be no one can trust anyone to do their job (maybe lack of power or insecurity) so what good is it?

People should vote for the president and not whoever has a majority of seats selects one. Get away from that system. If you go presidential and he does some crazy things what can you do? Anyone has powers and if yes then go for Presidential stuff. With Presidentail thingy one can say I want Zardari or Nawaz or Afridi as president. It will not be how many members he has in parliment

[insaftak]

the problem with indias system is that it rejects minoritys, in pakistan atleast its not that bad as the dalits or the chirstians in assam, muslims in kashmir, tamils or naxlites, i will take pakistans system over that anyday.

if you are talking about seats for minorities and women in parliament then i will also have to disagree with you on that one too and this time i am going against imran khan and pti who support this idea. i personally think that there should be no discriminatory law in practice and these seats for women and minorities in our gov't are just that.

[insaftak]

Pakistan has to go to Presidential government and move away from the Parlimentary stuff from what I can see. Gillani who is the leader is nobody. President Zardari and before that Musharaff making the decisions. But can Pakistan do it? Looks to be no one can trust anyone to do their job (maybe lack of power or insecurity) so what good is it?

People should vote for the president and not whoever has a majority of seats selects one. Get away from that system.

well for that you would also have to change the way elections for senators are held, and even for president, do you want a direct vote or indirect vote like we have now, the current system is disgraceful. people vote for MPAs, who then vote for senators and then MPS, MNA, Senators vote for president.

[Shoaib Akhtar's Fan]

why just Musharraf ? Hang all these corrupt politicians because of whom our beloved country has gone to the dogs..

[Mohsin]

Pakistan has to go to Presidential government and move away from the Parlimentary stuff from what I can see. Gillani who is the leader is nobody. President Zardari and before that Musharaff making the decisions. But can Pakistan do it? Looks to be no one can trust anyone to do their job (maybe lack of power or insecurity) so what good is it?

People should vote for the president and not whoever has a majority of seats selects one. Get away from that system. If you go presidential and he does some crazy things what can you do? Anyone has powers and if yes then go for Presidential stuff

The President should (and was before Musharraf and Zardari) only be there for a ceremonial purpose.
As for Gillani, i dont know about the 'no-body'! He's started to stamp his authority and 'stand up' to Zardari. I think it was Zardari's thinking originally when making Gillani PM that he would be an easy PM who would be 'laid back' in his approach for Zardari to make the top brass decision...but how thats proved to have backfired.

[insaftak]

The President should (and was before Musharraf and Zardari) only be there for a ceremonial purpose.
As for Gillani, i dont know about the 'no-body'! He's started to stamp his authority and 'stand up' to Zardari. I think it was Zardari's thinking originally when making Gillani PM that he would be an easy PM who would be 'laid back' in his approach for Zardari to make the top brass decision...but how thats proved to have backfired.

people have already started calling him yosuaf raza leghari in reference to Farooq leghari (ppp jiyala) president of pakistan in 1990s that turned against its own gov't and dissolved assemblies.

[12thMan]

well for that you would also have to change the way elections for senators are held, and even for president, do you want a direct vote or indirect vote like we have now, the current system is disgraceful. people vote for MPAs, who then vote for senators and then MPS, MNA, Senators vote for president.Go USA way. people vote for senetors and people vote for the president. Both are important. Much is party related but for state people want the state stuff as he is responible for the state or his constituency plus the country and then there is President. Usually the senetors will go with the President but people can vote for senetors of one party and president of another. I have seen people pick and choose as there are some republicans and democrats but they decide and sometimes it is bad.
But for system to work atleast something has to be working

ofcourse then you have the state elections etc too to look more after the state

[hasanb]

Go USA way. people vote for senetors and people vote for the president. Both are important. Much is party related but for state people want the state stuff as he is responible for the state or his constituency plus the country and then there is President. Usually the senetors will go with the President but people can vote for senetors of one party and president of another. I have seen people pick and choose as there are some republicans and democrats but they decide and sometimes it is bad.
But for system to work atleast something has to be working

ofcourse then you have the state elections etc too to look more after the state

I would prefer this system, although it must be pointed out that their electoral college system is quite messed up.

[insaftak]

although it must be pointed out that their electoral college system is quite messed up.

YEp i agree on u something, try reading "How democratic is the american constitution" by Robert Dahl for more, (if you are into it)

[12thMan]

I would prefer this system, although it must be pointed out that their electoral college system is quite messed up.Electoral system, I remember questioned about it in some school exam long time ago so not really familiar as you have to study it, but country has to design the system that works. My guess for electoral system is that it was to make sure that someone incompetent was not getting voted from that state???? for presidency. Isn't it state based and some states have more votes because of population. And isn't it usually if not always that who gets most vots get the electoral votes? I don't follow elections here so I don't know if let's say 13 electoral votes went to Republican and 2 to democrats

Design your own system. Pakistan doesn't have to follow the British system just because they inherited it.

BTW: Did the country start with this Parlimentary system?

[insaftak]

Electoral system, I remember questioned about it in some school exam long time ago so not really familiar as you have to study it, but country has to design the system that works. My guess for electoral system is that it was to make sure that someone incompetent was not getting voted from that state???? for presidency. Isn't it state based and some states have more votes because of population.

Design your own system. Pakistan doesn't have to follow the British system just because they inherited it.

BTW: Did the country start with this Parlimentary system?

thats unequal representation in senate where a state of California is under represented if you compare it to state of Wyoming, electoral votes = number of house of representatives + 2) Ameirican system favors smaller states both in senate and Presidential elections

[12thMan]

thats unequal representation in senate where a state of California is under represented if you compare it to state of Wyoming, electoral votes = number of house of representatives + 2) Ameirican system favors smaller states both in senate and Presidential electionsthanks for that. I just edited the post to ask another question and I think this answers it. So take out the electoral college. I am sure it was started for some reason and it suits them but members of House of representive of California is bigger than Wyoming (I think)

[insaftak]

BTW: Did the country start with this Parlimentary system?

Under Section 8 of the Indian Independence Act, 1947, the Government of India Act, 1935 became, with certain adaptations, the working constitution of Pakistan. But the need of a constitution to be framed by the elected representatives of the people, was all the more necessary for the free people of a sovereign state. Therefore the first Constituent Assembly was formed under the Independence Act, 1947 and was entrusted with two
separate functions:[2]

To frame a Constitution for the country, and
To set as a Federal Legislative Assembly or Parliament until that Constitution came into effect.

The powers and functions of the central legislature under the Government of India Act, 1935, were conferred on the Constituent Assembly. The Constituent Assembly could, however, amend the Indian Independence Act, 1947 or the Government of India Act, 1935, and no Act of the British Parliament could be extended to Pakistan without legislation by the Constituent Assembly. The first Constituent Assembly originally consisted of 69 members; subsequently the number of members was increased to 79 (including 44 from East Bengal).[2]

this is what i got from wikipedia

[hasanb]

YEp i agree on u something, try reading "How democratic is the american constitution" by Robert Dahl for more, (if you are into it)

Yeah for sure I will look into that book, I'm quite interested in this stuff.

To be completely honest I am a little glad the american system is a little flawed like that. Otherwise if states like california etc were given even more electoral college votes then the republicans would never even get near to the presidency ever! (Im a republican supporter) :P

[insaftak]

Yeah for sure I will look into that book, I'm quite interested in this stuff.

To be completely honest I am a little glad the american system is a little flawed like that. Otherwise if states like california etc were given even more electoral college votes then the republicans would never even get near to the presidency ever! (Im a republican supporter) :P

i hate republicans :D,

[hasanb]

i hate republicans :D,

surprise of the century :))

[12thMan]

Yeah for sure I will look into that book, I'm quite interested in this stuff.

To be completely honest I am a little glad the american system is a little flawed like that. Otherwise if states like california etc were given even more electoral college votes then the republicans would never even get near to the presidency ever! (Im a republican supporter) :PPeople vote for who they want. They voted for Regan and current governor Shorts&necker is Republican. I looked at some votes as someone mentioned something similar few months ago and posted it here and last majority vote for Republican for President might be Bush Senior???? People pick and choose even though California is regarded as Democratic state

[insaftak]

thanks for that. I just edited the post to ask another question and I think this answers it. So take out the electoral college. I am sure it was started for some reason and it suits them but members of House of representive of California is bigger than Wyoming (I think)

california's population is like 70 times bigger than Wyoming population , that is why i say california is underrepresented in senate and in fact minority rules majority and does whatever it wants in senate

[hasanb]

People vote for who they want. They voted for Regan and current governor Shorts&necker is Republican. I looked at some votes as someone mentioned something similar few months ago and posted it here and last majority vote for Republican for President might be Bush Senior???? People pick and choose even though California is regarded as Democratic state

Yes you are right, the 1988 elections was the last time california voted republican, after that it has voted democrat in the 5 subsequent presidential elections.

Interestingly, before 1988 California had voted republican 5 - 6 times in a row. However this is unlikely to happen again due to the population demographics, particularly with a very high volume of hispanics in the state now amongst others who are traditional democrat voters.

[12thMan]

california's population is like 70 times bigger than Wyoming population , that is why i say california is underrepresented in senate and in fact minority rules majority and does whatever it wants in senateNot necessarily a bad thing. If you think majority in one region should have more control then it can cause problems. For USA I think it is basically more state wide stuff and President doesn't matter much. When I say President doesn't matter much it is to do with economy first. Over here it is same as anyother place - jobs. I stop at jobs as that is the most important thing. There is health and education etc. I will go by Wyoming (and not to argue on it). Take Wyoming as Balochistan and California as Punjab and what do you see? California was like the 5th biggest econmoy in the world few years ago and I don't know where it is now. What has damged it is enviornmental laws and taxes. That is state business and nothing to do with federal (President). Inside some of the state business President doens't affect much unless he brings in policy of no outsourcing or global econmy etc.

[insaftak]

Not necessarily a bad thing. If you think majority in one region should have more control then it can cause problems. For USA I think it is basically more state wide stuff and President doesn't matter much. When I say President doesn't matter much it is to do with economy first. Over here it is same as anyother place - jobs. I stop at jobs as that is the most important thing. There is health and education etc. I will go by Wyoming (and not to argue on it). Take Wyoming as Balochistan and California as Punjab and what do you see? California was like the 5th biggest econmoy in the world few years ago and I don't know where it is now. What has damged it is enviornmental laws and taxes. That is state business and nothing to do with federal (President). Inside some of the state business President doens't affect much unless he brings in policy of no outsourcing or global econmy etc.

what i'm saying is that Wyoming and other small states has too much power in senate and can shoot down any issue that majority of people want. Lets say an issue like abortion was brought in as womens fundamental right to choose by states like NY/California/Illinois, it can easily shot down by smaller red states in senate.

[12thMan]

Well I posted two links and the second on was better. I will try to see couple of programs tomorrow and if they relate to the topic I will post them

[Free Hit]

this formula of current siatuation

if musharraf is found guilty of his wrong doing then zardari is no more president, even the government, and am sure that zardari will back musharraf, and even if that dont qork then army will come into play, i think musharraf is going to win this case and will be in politics atraight after.

but why hanged?

[Zechariah]

Funny how people use a statement of a proven Balochi British Dog [whose dad was killed for the right reason] to justify their claims.

[from_da_lost_dim3nsion]

make this a poll and youll realize how many people here actually support musharraf...and i am one of them.
we have quit arguing becasue there is no point.nomatter what ,nobody is gonna chaneg their opinion

[spectator]

hassanb tum deevaron say sar takra rahay ho. they are all musharrafs khoon kay piyasay. leave them. in ki aag tab thandi ho gi jab musharraf maray ga.

[insaftak]

http://www.friendskorner.com/forum/f179/talk-show-meray-mutabiq-25th-july-2009-imran-khan-127019/

interviews by some former judges, Imran Khan and ex ppp senator Anwar Baig who resigned during the long march.


I have to completely disagree with Imran khan here, we need to teach someone lesson and its about time that people start paying for their crimes, also must listen to Anwar Baig's views on What PPP gov't must do and what will happen to it if it doesn't do anything.

[MIG]

Gen Musharraf did not murder anyone. Get this into your head.

I can understand jail time if proven guilty but I see no reason for a death penalty.

Hanging him for a constitutional offence will make a mockery of our justice system where rapists, murderers are allowed to roam free.

This will also create a serious rift amongst the armed forces and civilian govt which will not heal for many years.

Additionally, there is no such punishment in Islamic system of justice. Unless there is blood on his hand, in which case that is a murder charge, he should not be hanged.

[HillRock]

Gen Musharraf did not murder anyone. Get this into your head.

I can understand jail time if proven guilty but I see no reason for a death penalty.

Hanging him for a constitutional offence will make a mockery of our justice system where rapists, murderers are allowed to roam free.

This will also create a serious rift amongst the armed forces and civilian govt which will not heal for many years.

Additionally, there is no such punishment in Islamic system of justice. Unless there is blood on his hand, in which case that is a murder charge, he should not be hanged.
For the sake of argument, who says he will be hanged according to Islamic system of justice? He deserves death according to Pakistan constitution 1973's article 6. Also you should read the words of oath that armed forces' persons take in the beginning of their careers, if you understand what oath really means, from the POV of Islam or otherwise.

[MIG]

I only mention the Islamic system of justice as I believe, we have another life after this one and we are answerable to ALLAH.

You can ignore that comment if you dont believe in it.

I also believe that people who kill others and people who condone such deaths are all liable for judgement on the day of reckoning.

Also you mention the oath that Army officers take - can you pls post this oath as I dont have a copy.

[HillRock]

I only mention the Islamic system of justice as I believe, we have another life after this one and we are answerable to ALLAH.

You can ignore that comment if you dont believe in it.

I also believe that people who kill others and people who condone such deaths are all liable for judgement on the day of reckoning.

Also you mention the oath that Army officers take - can you pls post this oath as I dont have a copy.

“I, do hereby solemnly swear that I will bear true faith and allegiance to Pakistan and uphold the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan which embodies the will of the people, that I will not engage myself in any political activities whatsoever and that I will honestly and faithfully serve Pakistan in the Pakistan army by and under the law.”

Since you brought Islam into this, more than the words of oath, you should weigh the spirit of oath into this.

[Zeenix]

Also you mention the oath that Army officers take - can you pls post this oath as I dont have a copy.

Oath of allegiance for armed services:

“I, do hereby solemnly swear that I will bear true faith and allegiance to Pakistan and uphold the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan which embodies the will of the people, that I will not engage myself in any political activities whatsoever and that I will honestly and faithfully serve Pakistan in the Pakistan army by and under the law.”

[MIG]

“I, do hereby solemnly swear that I will bear true faith and allegiance to Pakistan and uphold the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan which embodies the will of the people, that I will not engage myself in any political activities whatsoever and that I will honestly and faithfully serve Pakistan in the Pakistan army by and under the law.”

Since you brought Islam into this, more than the words of oath, you should weigh the spirit of oath into this.

That bit is crystal clear and I agree with all. Where is the bit about the death penalty?

[HillRock]

I did not say that oath has death penalty in it. I only mentioned oath because I think you should weigh in the spirit of oath from the POV of Islam which, I must say, you have avoided so far.

The death penalty bit is in article 6 which in oath is referred in bold, so in effect each armed forces person accepts article 6 which in turn proposed capital punishment for a person who abrogated or attempted to abrogate, subverted or attempted to subvert the Constitution by use of force or by other means, and that he or she would be guilty of high treason.


“I, do hereby solemnly swear that I will bear true faith and allegiance to Pakistan and uphold the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan which embodies the will of the people, that I will not engage myself in any political activities whatsoever and that I will honestly and faithfully serve Pakistan in the Pakistan army by and under the law.”

[MIG]

Interesting you mention Islam here.

Can you pls point out any Islamic law which, apart from denying ALLAH and his Prophet PBUH, calls for a death penalty without a crime of murder being committed?

I understand people are unhappy with what he has done but a death penalty is serious business.

At the end of our life in this world, we who condone this death penalty will be answerable as well ( ofcourse Musharaf, Sharif, Bhutto, Zardari and others as well)

Jail sentence - YES - Death penalty - NO.

[spectator]

Oath of allegiance for armed services:

“I, do hereby solemnly swear that I will bear true faith and allegiance to Pakistan and uphold the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan which embodies the will of the people, that I will not engage myself in any political activities whatsoever and that I will honestly and faithfully serve Pakistan in the Pakistan army by and under the law.”

taking always a principle stand on political issues is not a good thing. what you are presenting is we agree on. if law implemented in true form, mushraff dealth panely no questions asked. but dont make it black and white as was done in case of zulfiqar bhutto. Army has learned their lesson and believe me, killing musharraf will not do any good. army wont be happy. his supporters in few years will say unjustice was done as others have done similar crimes. There will always be doubts on judiciary's biasness and NS's personal reasons to hate musharraf. politically we need peace and calmness in society. if you want to make him an example, exile him for few years and ban him from politics forever. or even if he appologizes, just exile should be enough. but killing him would not be good for country. we are already famous for killings humans world wide.
whats happening now is that both ppp and pmln are putting all their sins on musharraf as well.

[HillRock]

hassanb tum deevaron say sar takra rahay ho. they are all musharrafs khoon kay piyasay. leave them. in ki aag tab thandi ho gi jab musharraf maray ga.
You are a little bit late in pointing out that, he actually did that in the past. You can really feel the effect of that in his rants by the absence of intelligence.

[HillRock]

Interesting you mention Islam here.

Can you pls point out any Islamic law which, apart from denying ALLAH and his Prophet PBUH, calls for a death penalty without a crime of murder being committed?

I understand people are unhappy with what he has done but a death penalty is serious business.

Interesting, yes but I was not the one who brought Islam into this debate. I don't want to bring/discuss Islam into this. I only mentioned because you mentioned it first and I wanted to know about what Islam says about breaking one's oath in which one accept that one can be put to death in case of breaking one's oath.


At the end of our life in this world, we who condone this death penalty will be answerable as well ( ofcourse Musharaf, Sharif, Bhutto, Zardari and others as well)

that holds true in general in all cases.


Jail sentence - YES - Death penalty - NO.
Fair enough. I accept that is your opinion. But it has nothing to do with Islam.

[zimmz]

hassanb tum deevaron say sar takra rahay ho. they are all musharrafs khoon kay piyasay. leave them. in ki aag tab thandi ho gi jab musharraf maray ga.

And you keep coming back to read us, keep advising hassanb etc. We have AAG or not but it seems your blood is boiling by reading about poor busharaf. :))

[DHONI183]

He will be punished, fine, but what about others who have done so much corruption etc.:20:?

[spectator]

And you keep coming back to read us, keep advising hassanb etc. We have AAG or not but it seems your blood is boiling by reading about poor busharaf. :))

i never defended musharraf its you guys who are acting like "dont touch my prey dont touch my prey" ;-)

[zimmz]

You might not have defended him but you are so worried for him getting chopped by us man eaters. ;-)

[Mohsin]

He will be punished, fine, but what about others who have done so much corruption etc.:20:?

They become President! :Zardari

[insaftak]

They become President! :Zardari

He wouldn't have been the president, if musharaf didn't sign the National Robbery Ordinance.

[spectator]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTzzuXvuci0&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Esiasat%2Epk%2Fforum%2Fview topic%2Ephp%3Ff%3D16%26t%3D7080&feature=player_embedded

[Mohsin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTzzuXvuci0&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Esiasat%2Epk%2Fforum%2Fview topic%2Ephp%3Ff%3D16%26t%3D7080&feature=player_embedded

He's a lota.....ask him what he thinks of Musharraf now.

[Mohsin]

He wouldn't have been the president, if musharaf didn't sign the National Robbery Ordinance.

I dont think it would have made any difference anyway.....the President must not hold any other position within any political party....Zardari is PPP co-chairman. The President must be of sane mind, without any abnormality of mind.....well we all know about Zardari on that front.
Pending cases of no pending cases, he would have become President after using Nawaz Sharif to get rid of Musharraf.

On the other hand you can always say that what Musharraf did was 'afham-muttafeem', reconciliation. Something we're hearing PPPers say all the time nowadays!

[srh]

I am not sure Musharaff will get a fair trial. Look at this news report:


The News International
Sunday, July 26, 2009
LAHORE: The Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court, Justice Khawaja Mohammed Sharif, has said that former president Pervez Musharraf should be punished for his unconstitutional steps.

Addressing the oath-taking ceremony of the Ferozwala Bar Association in Shekhupura district, Justice Sharif said that Musharraf had seen good times and now should be ready to face bad times because of his deeds.

The judiciary has already made up their mind and speaking of it even before the trial. In a democratic country this would be called a mistrial on the first date. Not sure what will happen in Pakistan.

[hasanb]

I am not sure Musharaff will get a fair trial. Look at this news report:



The judiciary has already made up their mind and speaking of it even before the trial. In a democratic country this would be called a mistrial on the first date. Not sure what will happen in Pakistan.

Yeah its all of ganja nawaz sharifs henchmen, they are the ones baying for musharrafs blood...out of pure vengeance and nothing else. The very legality of the bench who are trying these cases well be the focus of a countersuit first of all.

[insaftak]

evidence against musharaf is known to every pakistani, you just can't go on and violate Constitution, he himself said he violated the constitution

[hasanb]

evidence against musharaf is known to every pakistani, you just can't go on and violate Constitution, he himself said he violated the constitution

ok reserve the verdict till after the trial? is that not a basic thing to do? otherwise what is the point of the trial just go and lynch him right now.

[Zechariah]

evidence against musharaf is known to every pakistani, you just can't go on and violate Constitution, he himself said he violated the constitution

While others before who violated it get away with it? Hypocritical don't you think? Apparently Pakistanis think you only have to be an army general to violate the constitution.

The politics of revenge will destroy Pakistan and it will come back like a boomerang, watch and enjoy the show from out enlightened siyasdaan.

[waqar_ahmad]

ok reserve the verdict till after the trial? is that not a basic thing to do? otherwise what is the point of the trial just go and lynch him right now.
Trial is to impose the state's law. An individual is allowed to think whatever he wants.

Just like the way you think that NS was let off the hook.

[hasanb]

Trial is to impose the state's law. An individual is allowed to think whatever he wants.

Just like the way you think that NS was let off the hook.

yes...but then is it right for the trying jury or bench to have made up their mind before the trial has even started? Is that not the classic definition of a mis trial?

[waqar_ahmad]

yes...but then is it right for the trying jury or bench to have made up their mind before the trial has even started? Is that not the classic definition of a mis trial?
An individual is not the jury yaar, come on.

And like I said, apply the same rules you applied in case of NS

[insaftak]

While others before who violated it get away with it? Hypocritical don't you think? Apparently Pakistanis think you only have to be an army general to violate the constitution.

The politics of revenge will destroy Pakistan and it will come back like a boomerang, watch and enjoy the show from out enlightened siyasdaan.


yes everyone should be punished for suspending constitution.

[hasanb]

An individual is not the jury yaar, come on.

And like I said, apply the same rules you applied in case of NS

He is the Lahore High Court CJ though! Not just an individual!

I am just an individual lol...but this guy holds a high position in the judiciary of the country, slight difference there mate.

[insaftak]

He is the Lahore High Court CJ though! Not just an individual!

I am just an individual lol...but this guy holds a high position in the judiciary of the country, slight difference there mate.

he won't be part of the bench, yes i agree with you on that he should keep his mouth shut, the evidence against musharaf is so much that i don't see him getting away with it.

[hasanb]

he won't be part of the bench, yes i agree with you on that he should keep his mouth shut, the evidence against musharaf is so much that i don't see him getting away with it.

the problem is though that so much mud can also be thrown on existing members of the bench themselves, as well as every other politician in Pakistan at this point in time, thats its not going to be as easy as youre making it out to be.

[zimmz]

http://www.awaz.tv/playvideo.asp?pageId=4619

Here is a TV program for analysis and discussion on this topic.

[waqar_ahmad]

He is the Lahore High Court CJ though! Not just an individual!

I am just an individual lol...but this guy holds a high position in the judiciary of the country, slight difference there mate.
O wait, I didnt know you were talking about LHC CJ's statement here. My bad!

[spectator]

He's a lota.....ask him what he thinks of Musharraf now.

he gives arguments which are quite powerful. Lahore high court judge has already given verdit on musharraf. This is highly political case now. SC is taking badla. It seems there is not going to be any justice done. I am with musharraf now. Just read his interview on aaj. He is best person to lead pakistan and better than so called politicians.

[insaftak]

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court(IHC) has adjourned the hearing of a petition to file a case against former President Pervaiz Musharraf till 1: 00 pm.

The coordinator of Defence of Human Rights Khalid Khawaja has filed a petition in IHC stated the he was put in illegal detention in previous government on the directives of Pervaiz Musharraf, Shaukat Aziz and Aftab Sherpao and police have not registering the case, therefore, IHC should directed police to lodge FIR.

In his remarks, Justice Ramzan Chaudhry said Pervaiz Musharraf could be summoned in IHC if he will appeared in Supreme Court.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

another case against musharaf,

[Zeenix]

Interesting you mention Islam here.

Can you pls point out any Islamic law which, apart from denying ALLAH and his Prophet PBUH, calls for a death penalty without a crime of murder being committed?

I understand people are unhappy with what he has done but a death penalty is serious business.

At the end of our life in this world, we who condone this death penalty will be answerable as well ( ofcourse Musharaf, Sharif, Bhutto, Zardari and others as well)

Jail sentence - YES - Death penalty - NO.

Ok, so now Islamists to the rescue. The Military Mullah Alliance has never been a secret, and its no surprise that Islamic clauses are being used to defend the fallen from grace.

May i remind you, that the Constitution of Pakistan was unanimously approved, Even by the leading Scholars of All Sects of Islam. Their approval is a FATWA endorsing all the punishments and sections of the Constitution.

In the Later Life we don't know as Allah will be the judge of it. However for this material world, the FATWA of prominent scholars suffices. And according to those FATWA Mush is punishable by death.

[MIG]

Ok, so now Islamists to the rescue. The Military Mullah Alliance has never been a secret, and its no surprise that Islamic clauses are being used to defend the fallen from grace.

May i remind you, that the Constitution of Pakistan was unanimously approved, Even by the leading Scholars of All Sects of Islam. Their approval is a FATWA endorsing all the punishments and sections of the Constitution.

In the Later Life we don't know as Allah will be the judge of it. However for this material world, the FATWA of prominent scholars suffices. And according to those FATWA Mush is punishable by death.

Think about it Zee. Will you put a man to death based on a constitutional argument? Simple as that.

[Zeenix]

taking always a principle stand on political issues is not a good thing. what you are presenting is we agree on. if law implemented in true form, mushraff dealth panely no questions asked. but dont make it black and white as was done in case of zulfiqar bhutto. Army has learned their lesson and believe me, killing musharraf will not do any good. army wont be happy. his supporters in few years will say unjustice was done as others have done similar crimes. There will always be doubts on judiciary's biasness and NS's personal reasons to hate musharraf. politically we need peace and calmness in society. if you want to make him an example, exile him for few years and ban him from politics forever. or even if he appologizes, just exile should be enough. but killing him would not be good for country. we are already famous for killings humans world wide.
whats happening now is that both ppp and pmln are putting all their sins on musharraf as well.

First of all Lets be very very clear. It isn't a political issue. It is a clear violation of a law, a very clear case of high treason on which the constitution is very clear. Why would anyone want a traitor to be allowed to roam freely. I repeat TRAITOR.

Let the law take its course. Once we are done with dictators and they have had their share of walk the dock, then true supremacy of law would ensue i am sure about that. A judiciary not afraid of a dictator is not afraid of anyone.

[Zeenix]

Think about it Zee. Will you put a man to death based on a constitutional argument? Simple as that.

If i am the judge then Yes. If i don't do it then i would be dishonest to my profession. If i can hang a murderer, a rapist, an adulterer all punishments specified by the Penal code so can i give a death penalty to a TRAITOR.

[Zeenix]

he gives arguments which are quite powerful. Lahore high court judge has already given verdit on musharraf. This is highly political case now. SC is taking badla. It seems there is not going to be any justice done. I am with musharraf now. Just read his interview on aaj. He is best person to lead pakistan and better than so called politicians.

Has the case been taken up by the LHC. The Judge was voicing his opinion in a personal capacity and that too according to the Constitution. So why the hue and cry. Tomorrow if a judge passes a statement that a self proclaimed Murderer should be punished, would you be siding with the Murderer.

Remember that MUSH himself admitted of abrogating the constitution demonstrating the contempt he had for Pakistani Constitution and Pakistani People and Pakistan in General.

[DHONI183]

They become President! :Zardari

Oh´ okay:)!

[waqar_ahmad]

Think about it Zee. Will you put a man to death based on a constitutional argument? Simple as that.
Absolutely. Treason is punishable by death, and rightly so.

[waqar_ahmad]

First of all Lets be very very clear. It isn't a political issue. It is a clear violation of a law, a very clear case of high treason on which the constitution is very clear. Why would anyone want a traitor to be allowed to roam freely. I repeat TRAITOR.

Let the law take its course. Once we are done with dictators and they have had their share of walk the dock, then true supremacy of law would ensue i am sure about that. A judiciary not afraid of a dictator is not afraid of anyone.
Here is what I dont understand. Just the fact that the judges are openly against what mush did, makes them political? I dont see the logic behind this.

Anyone who knows a thing or two about the constitution knows that what mush did was wrong. So, the judges, who are responsible for implementing the constitution, would be clear about it too.

Making the case sound as political is lame, and an excuse to back mush in case he is punished by the SC

[hasanb]

Absolutely. Treason is punishable by death, and rightly so.

Yeah clear your head for a second and think of this as a human being rather than a political beast. Would you kill somebody who hasnt murdered anybody himself...imagine yourself with a gun in your hand or something over a constitutional argument.

Or do you think death is perhaps better reserved for those who murder, rape etc...just think about this for a second. Forget its musharraf...dont bring your feelings for him into it.

Anyway I dont expect you to agree with me on this, its your opinion thats fair enough, just thought id register my view there, no hard feelings mate :)

[waqar_ahmad]

Yeah clear your head for a second and think of this as a human being rather than a political beast. Would you kill somebody who hasnt murdered anybody himself...imagine yourself with a gun in your hand or something over a constitutional argument.

Or do you think death is perhaps better reserved for those who murder, rape etc...just think about this for a second. Forget its musharraf...dont bring your feelings for him into it.

Anyway I dont expect you to agree with me on this, its your opinion thats fair enough, just thought id register my view there, no hard feelings mate :)
What is this hasan?

Yaar first you argue about mush doing something wrong. Then you debate about the punishment.

I would just say that what he did is treason, and should be, absolutely, punishable by death.

Not just mush, this applied to everybody. Let's just leave it at that

[Momo]

Yeah clear your head for a second and think of this as a human being rather than a political beast. Would you kill somebody who hasnt murdered anybody himself...imagine yourself with a gun in your hand or something over a constitutional argument.
Gun in hand? I will definitely not endorse a gun in hand solution, but as long as a court gives him the death penalty, I am all for it. As for the constitutional argument, well if that argument is based on something as serious as treason, death is what he deserves. Especially when he took oath on the same document according to which he is punishable by death.

Or do you think death is perhaps better reserved for those who murder, rape etc...just think about this for a second. Forget its musharraf...dont bring your feelings for him into it.
Those who murder : Well a number of people just disappeared when he was the 'undisputed' 'leader' of Pakistan. It is quite reasonable to suppose that a few would have died (along with others who were 'only' tortured).

Those who rape : If Musharraf hasn't raped Pakistan, no body has ever raped anybody.

[Mohsin]

What is this hasan?

Yaar first you argue about mush doing something wrong. Then you debate about the punishment.

I would just say that what he did is treason, and should be, absolutely, punishable by death.

Not just mush, this applied to everybody. Let's just leave it at that

imo thats the main point...'everybody'

I personally dont think Musharraf should be punished by death but rather make him a living, breathing example of what will happen to you if you adventure into politics when you're suppose to be at the borders, that'll be enough to put generals off doing the unthinkable.
Plus we've got actual traitors to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan...deal with them.

[hasanb]

What is this hasan?

Yaar first you argue about mush doing something wrong. Then you debate about the punishment.

I would just say that what he did is treason, and should be, absolutely, punishable by death.

Not just mush, this applied to everybody. Let's just leave it at that

yes i did say leave musharraf out of this one, I dont think the punishment is appropriate to this crime, in other words i would not classify this crime as HIGH treason. A jail sentence is appropriate for this crime but not the death penalty.

Whether musharraf is guilty of it is another debate and not what i am discussing here.

[waqar_ahmad]

Those who rape : If Musharraf hasn't raped Pakistan, no body has ever raped anybody.

Good point

[hasanb]

Good point

emotional rather than rational thinking there, but ok

[Momo]

emotional rather than rational thinking there, but ok
Rational thinking was conveyed in the first half of that post.

Emotions are important as well. Make us human.

[hasanb]

Rational thinking was conveyed in the first half of that post.

Emotions are important as well. Make us human.

fair point, although in my opinion there is no one who has raped the country more than nawaz sharif, so just a matter of different views and opinions i guess.

[12thMan]

Think about it Zee. Will you put a man to death based on a constitutional argument? Simple as that.
If i am the judge then Yes. If i don't do it then i would be dishonest to my profession. If i can hang a murderer, a rapist, an adulterer all punishments specified by the Penal code so can i give a death penalty to a TRAITOR.
Absolutely. Treason is punishable by death, and rightly so.
The questions and the answers. Now similar argument is also applied to people leaving Islam (some call it treason). I don't agree with the religeous view but will side with the civil view of breaking certain laws. But then it also comes to will I agree with death punishment or even jail sentence for thoes who leave Islam? and I won't.

From what I have got last week is start somewhere - which I also don't believe in that they can only be tried after they have left. Yes the power is there and someone first have to take them out. It is a process that has to be built that doesn't allow ruling party to do what they feel like. This start somewhere might end next month the way the process is with the political parties as quite a bit has to come from the Parliment. Supreme court can do some checks but Parliment has to be sincere and not act as a party cheerleaders too

[spectator]

Has the case been taken up by the LHC. The Judge was voicing his opinion in a personal capacity and that too according to the Constitution. So why the hue and cry. Tomorrow if a judge passes a statement that a self proclaimed Murderer should be punished, would you be siding with the Murderer.

Remember that MUSH himself admitted of abrogating the constitution demonstrating the contempt he had for Pakistani Constitution and Pakistani People and Pakistan in General.

I am not sure is it allowed in pakistan constitution for a judge to have a political opinion publically but morally i consider it a punishable crime for a judge. you are comparing a self proclaimed murderer with musharraf?? according to you he killed constitution. Ch Iftikhar was the one who allowed him to kill the consitution who is the bigger criminal then?? if Ch iftikhar and co said no to him in the start he would not violate the constitution so if i make argument that "with the permission of ch iftikhar musharraf was able to do the crime " who is a bigger criminal then??? would you side with or cry or hue with a personal who supports a criminal??? did ch iftikhar not did safarish to his son. to me thats is a punishable crime for a chief justice, permanently sacked or jailed for certain no of years?/ just ask yourself question am i saying wrong here?? if you say no then put a bench on supreme court to decide about this matter. what you say???
jamat e islami and jamiat fazul rahman group did 17 amedment. were they not helping criminal? are they not bigger culprits then musharraf. if ch iftikhar is bigger culprit than musharraf then will the justice not be given to iftikhar first??? if musharraf deserve death then iftikhar deserve death two times according to law and logic. but he has become a political person and run a political campain for 2 years and people are with him just like people were with zia. sheep always walk where the flock is.
long point short. there are bigger culprits than musharraf who needs to be hanged first before musharraf but as they have political support now even their sins are placed on musharraf. can you imagine that these jedues who cannot give the impression of impartially in billion years against musharraf because of the movement(may be they are sincere from inside but that doesnt matter) are giving justice to musharraf.
This is pure intikam brother. As i said i have no sympathies to musharraf. hang him. but i do not have sympathies for these munafiqs too. they deserve to be hanged before musharraf.

As they say this is a pandora box if you talk legally.

[desidudecool]

OH Bhai who told you that Musharaf is being tried ?lol...Musharraf can only be tried under article 6 at the request of the federal govt...hes only being summoned here thats not trial...and trial of Musharraf will not happen...Mr Kayani 's balls are too big for anyone to handle out there

[zimmz]

and trial of Musharraf will not happen...Mr Kayani 's balls are too big for anyone to handle out there

Experience speaks! :yk

[insaftak]

OH Bhai who told you that Musharaf is being tried ?lol...Musharraf can only be tried under article 6 at the request of the federal govt...hes only being summoned here thats not trial...

i agree with this, but You should also listen to what ex PPP senator anwar Baig (resigned during long march) has to say about what will happen to ppp if they fail to register a case against Musharaf. You could listen to him here, the same show imran khan said he didn't want to see musharaf hanged

http://www.friendskorner.com/forum/f179/talk-show-meray-mutabiq-25th-july-2009-imran-khan-127019/

[spectator]

musharraf is a great leader of pakistan and i hope people understand that. inshallah one day he will rule pakistan again through democratic process. musharraf kay jo khilaaf hai. ghaddar hai ghaddar hai

[Zeenix]

musharraf is a great leader of pakistan and i hope people understand that. inshallah one day he will rule pakistan again through democratic process. musharraf kay jo khilaaf hai. ghaddar hai ghaddar hai

Chalo at least you came out in the open.