Re: ARY and GEO shut down [merged]
The CJ suspended the chief commisioner of the police and not sacked him.
You mean just like President suspended CJ on 9th March but media and supporters of CJ were calling that sacking, just to score points and abuse government? *
[quote]
The law states that officials must act within the law. It is a criminal offence for police officials to use beyond reasonable force against the general public.
[/quote]
Yes, and it is also criminal offence for a Chief Justice (or any judge) to do nepotism, corruption, misuse of power, misconduct behaviour when performing duty, use facilities more than entitlement, etc ... and when government initiates reference in SJC, use brother judge to stop that reference. [Result of such activities is that in the end, instead of sending reference to SJC, government sacks such judges].
[quote]
If the CJ abused his position then Mushy should present the evidence before a court of law.
[/quote]
Well, that is what he tried on 9th March, he send reference to Supreme Judicial council (where there are only judges) with evidences, but before SJC could get along with investigations, SC judges stopped SJC to investigate, without yet giving reasons.
[quote]
The CJ is entitled to promote Judges as the COAS is entitled to promote Generals. Although even on this issue he needs to get the rubber stamp of the President in order to do that.
[/quote]
You are wrong. Only president is entitled to promote judges on recommendation of Prime Minister and consultation of CJ. CJ is not an appointing authority for judges neither authority in promotions. Actually, if Prime minister and President wants, they can even by-pass CJ recommendation.
[quote]
Let me again repeat the people are not terrorist just because an agency says that someone is. They need to have evidence and then need to present it to the Court. If they have no evidence then the cannot simply label people as terrorists.
[/quote]
Again wrong. Terrorists do not have written on their forehead that they are terrorists. Actually word terrorist is misleading, as anyone fighting the state within state could be called terrorist while those fighting the state may consider that terrorist their hero.
Nevertheless, law enforcement agencies (or intelligence agencies) get their information from various sources, including word of mouth, intelligence report comming from outside the country, or even just sight. Hence, if by any chance a case related to terrorist goes to court, judges should accept the words of agencies and trust them (unless there is reason to believe that someone in agency is involved in personal dispute with person accused of terrorism).
If case regarding terrorists come to court where personal grudge of anyone in agency is not involved (that victim can prove in court), but whole agency as institution is involved in believing a person to be terrorist, than judges should accept that person as wanted terrorist. If judge have problem in accepting that, then they should resign and if not, such judges should get sacked.
[Actually words of state police and agencies even in western countries weigh a lot where justice is much better than third world countries. For instance, in UK if 2 policemen give verbal evidence against someone in court, that is taken as enough evidential proof by judges to convict a person guilty].
[quote]
There is no ban on construction activity. However if laws of been broken by land grabbers then the Court can take action against them and ask them to stop the construction pending the settlement of the case.
[/quote]
Well, land grabbing itself is against the law and state, as administrator of all lands and land uses, do not have to go to court to reclaim grabbed lands. Records of ownership of all states are with state and not court. If someone grabbed land, then state has right to reclaim that without going to court. If anyone thinks that they are wronged than they have to go to court and prove that they are wronged by state in court.
If state would be required to go to court to reclaim grabbed lands than state would be just going to court all day and would be doing no work. Just imagine, state want to build footpath in an area where people have encroached the road, so to reclaim those encroachments to build footpath, government would need to go to court all day against house owners who encroached, before they can start building footpath. That would be ridiculous situation for any state.
[quote]
Why would "Mushy haters" want to defend the ban on Geo?
[/quote]
I do not know who you mean 'Mushy haters', but as far as I am concerned, I would like to defend ban on GEO news services and political biased programs, because they were full of lies and were spreading misinformation, that is harmful for any country. Read my last post on this thread for some examples I gave.
[quote]
I really have no time for ignorant fools like you. Pakistan is in trouble if it produces people like you.
[/quote]
Now that word ignorant is also debatable, as you might think I may be ignorant or for that matter, Suhaib is ignorant, but for us it could be other way round. As for country is in trouble, you are right, and we believe that all these corrupt politicians and gigolo from west trying to be Mullah is making all the troubles.*