'Deal done' - Benazir agrees to Musharraf’s re-election in uniform

[Flame_of_Life]

Re: ‘Deal done’ - Benazir agrees to Musharraf’s re-election in uniform

@king_faisal

flame of life, are you employed by any of the pakistani tv networks?

no

@king_faisal

your ability to confuse reality with the world of make belief makes it highly likely that you hold an important position with an important pak media outlet.

if wishes were horses

@king_faisal

1. musharraf was elected president under the referendum which was held in 2002.

but he had declared himself president much earlier…after ousting Rafique Tarar

@king_faisal

presidential term in pak is 5 years which is why musharraf has to seek another mandate in 2007 which is 5 years after the referendum.

does the constitution bar a third term for the president?

@king_faisal

musharraf did get a vote of confidence from present assembly but vote of confidence is not the same as presidential election.

what is the prescribed method of electing president in the constitution?

@king_faisal

in theory, under musharraf, there could have been multiple parliaments which could have given him multiple votes of confidence.

Mush didn’t have the courage to even speak to the assembly after he tried it once…short of tomatoes and eggs, his was the same end as that of a poor orator

@king_faisal

however these vote of confidence would have no bearing on the term of president. musharraf got vote of confidence from the current parliament in early 2004. if this vote of confidence was regarded as presidential elections, musharraf would have been able to rule until 2009. in summary, current parliament has not elected a president.

when does his term start then? Before Agra or after referendum?

@king_faisal

2. all the supreme court judges have either taken oath under pco or under the 1973 constitution which incorporated the 17th amendment. even the judges who have taken oath under modified constitution have held musharraf’s rule as constitutional. if in the eyes of judges, musharraf was guilty of subverting the constitution by launching a coup, judges would not have ruled in musharraf’s favour.

The same judges threw out his reference. Plus the CJ took a fresh oath when he took over as chief judge. The oath was on Constitution. Same goes for every judge that entered SC after the constitution was reinstated.

@king_faisal

criminals are not allowed to hold the office of president.

Reality suggests otherwise.

@king_faisal

3. on cj relationship with hc judges, read about his conflict with the senior judge of lahore as well as peshawer high court. also a sitting supreme court judge is in dispute with cj over the issue of who should have been appointed the cj.

This must get the adrenaline pumping in the govt’s quarters. All those differences amounted to nothing when the reference was thrown out and the president had to eat the humble pie. He must be getting used to it by now, don’t u think? Eating humble pies? Explains the pot belly.

@king_faisal

4. supreme court justices are powerless to act if constitution is amended to give legal cover to continuation of musharraf. clearly musharraf will not amend constitution in favour of benazir without getting anything in return.

SC can easily pour cold water on Musharraf’s plans by declaring that any amendment that extends his rule as President and COAS is contradictory to the spirit and basic framework of the constitution. And that would be that.

@king_faisal

bottomline, you are just doing khayaali pulao pukana much like tv correspondents wishing for islamic revolution.

ok