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

[antiobl]

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

The honourable Chief Justice seems to be being pulled into all the deal making. Tauba tauba! ....

People have to make deals in order to stop anarchy. If CJ sahib makes a deal with Pres. Musharraf. That's great.

In fact it is time for Shahbaz Sharif to make a deal as well.

Political, economic, and social stability is a must. And stability means one thing: power elite have made deals with each other.

Wealthy countries are what they are because their power elite made deals many decades (if not centuries) ago.

Here are few examples:

1. Top Japanese political parties are amalgamation of many smaller parties, who make a deal among each other to put a united candidate for PM position.

2. US politicians may sound so belligerent during primaries, then they make deals to put a united candidate.

3. Chinese military, bureaucracy, and communist party bosses all make deals to keep the country going.

Now I am glad to see BB, MQM, Prez are all making deals. Hopefully we'll see PML(N) will make deal too.

Remember why we got into military rule in 1999? Because BB / MQM / Mullahs refused to make deal with NS.
So deal making is good.

[Flame_of_Life]

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

U have raised questions that relate to the Constitution so I’ll use the document in my reply. All the articles here are fairly well explained and dont need additional comments so here we go.

@Sa1eem

How can Supreme Court decide anything that they have no right to decide?

Correction. The Supreme Court has a very vast jurisdiction my friend. It is not even a debate whether the SC can declare President’s Musharraf candidature legal or not. Musharraf himself knows this much, otherwise he nor any of his predecessors would have gone to the SC for a certificate of approval.

Article 184](Chapter 2: "The Supreme Court of Pakistan." of Part VII: "The Judicature")

@Sa1eem

Who would be President or not, or that President be in uniform or not, is not jurisdiction of Supreme Court but it is jurisdiction of Parliament.

I am not sure what u mean when u say that it is the jurisdiction of the Parliament..but I’ll substitute it with “decision of the Parliament” for ease of understanding.

I agree that it’s not for the SC to decide who is going to be the President but it can decide who is not going to be. In other words, it can disqualify a person from becoming President.

Now who can be President of Pakistan? He should be:

1: Muslim.
2: Pakistani
3: Qualified to become a member of Majlis-e-Shoora.

There r many qualifications for becoming an MNA, so I’ll just skip to the relevant disqualification clause here:

Article 63. Disqualifications for membership of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament):(1) A person shall be disqualified from being elected or chosen as, and from being, a member of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament), if:-

d) he holds an office of profit in the service of Pakistan other than an office declared by law not to disqualify its holder; or
(e) he is in the service of any statutory body of any body which is owned or controlled by the Government or in which the Government has a controlling share or interest; or

…

Pretty self explanatory.

@Sa1eem

So, what is not in Supreme Court jurisdiction, how can they decide? And even if they would like to decide regardless of a thing is in their jurisdiction or not,

Repeat

@Sa1eem

how would they enforce that? Please explain …

    **[Article 190](http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/constitution/part7.ch2.html).**         **Action in aid of Supreme Court.**       All executive and judicial authorities through out Pakistan shall act in aid of the Supreme Court._________

I hope this satisfies all your questions.

[Flame_of_Life]

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

@Aalsi

Is someone telling you porkies? Please provide a link to the statement made by the CJ?

Pakistan Zindabad :jhanda:

errr..the quotes were not from CJ’s speech but Aitezaz’s interview…still in case u missed CJ’s speech, for ur eyes only](http://www.dawn.com/2007/07/29/top4.htm):

“This is truly a historic moment. Today the people of Pakistan are looking towards the bar and the bench. Let’s not fail them,”

The chief justice asked the legal fraternity not to waste what had been achieved in the last four months and called upon the bar and the bench to provide a vision and a direction for realising the dream of achieving good governance.

“Let’s strive to make institutions of state flourish in their own right so that they may serve the people of Pakistan better,” he said.

The only route to such success, he said, was the development of national institutions at par with each other, working independently and within well-defined spheres for the sole objective of providing people a safe and sound environment to live according to their dreams and abilities.

Unfortunately, because of constitutional deviations in our national history, judiciary like other institutions also suffered decline, the chief justice deplored.

“Let bygones be bygones but we should learn lessons from our past,”

Let’s not allow any unconstitutional or extra-constitutional measures to disrupt the smooth sailing of the ship of our destiny. Let the bar and the bench provides a vision and a direction for realising the dream of achieving good governance and across the board accountability,” he said.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007\07\29\story_29-7-2007_pg7_17

Zindabad Zindabad :jhanda:

[Flame_of_Life]

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

@king_faisal

1. cj has only 1 vote.

Sure. But he makes all the benches. Like minded judges on the bench and voila! U can keep the three dissenting judges.

@king_faisal

also from the information available, there is an anti-cj camp in higher judiciary.

Source?

@king_faisal

moreover all the judges of sc took oath under the pco

WRONG

@king_faisal

and are unlikely to give decision which upsets the whole applecart.

Just like they did in the CJ’s case? u r entitled to ur opinion but it does not reflect the mood on ground.

@king_faisal

i am sure govt is already working on judges sympathetic to its pov.

so much for the claims of an unprecedented independence for judiciary in the current set up eh? One question though: How come the govt. couldn’t or didn’t work on the one verdict that mattered most?

@king_faisal

2. musharraf is allowed to hold dual offices under 17th amendment.

specific amendment for one term only.

@king_faisal

also since he become president as a result of referendum,

WRONG. He had to get he Parliament’s assent to become the President after the '02 elections. The referendum drama (accepeed even by Mush himself) was to last till the elections of 02.

@king_faisal

the current assembly is well within its right to appoint a new president after expiry of musharraf’s term.

an assembly elected for 5 years can elect a president for 10 years? Something isn’t adding up here.

@king_faisal

since musharraf can hold two offices under the constitution, he is eligible to run for presidential elections if the elections are held before the expiry of dual office period. after the expiry of dual office authorisation, musharraf can remain president if he stops being coas.

But then u have the clause that states that a civil servant must wait two years before standing for a public office. What do u do with that?

@king_faisal

3. under current consitution, benazir cannot become pm because consitution limits pm to two terms.

True

@king_faisal

there is zero chance of ppp getting 2/3 majority needed to make amendment to the constitution without the help of other parties.

Dont be so sure about the zero percent chance. After all there was zero percent chance Musharraf would ever make a deal with PPP.

@king_faisal

bottomline, musharraf is on pretty solid ground as far as legal challenge to his rule is concerned.

No wonder then.

@Sa1eem

Did Chief Justice say that? Gosh man, has CJ gone lunatic?

err no.

@Sa1eem

‘The day President would announce he is standing for re-election … court are going to close across Pakistan’ … is that what he said? Kiya court CJ kay baap kee jageer hay? Well, court may go on strike, no problem … but to say that by CJ would be a lunatic statement.

jazbaatiyaat. wallah. bhai jab I am not responding to the rest of your post because it is based on mis understanding.

@Sa1eem

And yea, who is this monkey Justice that can say these craps? …. ‘He feel that it is end of road for the military? It is the end of road for Pervez Musharraf?’ Doesn’t this monkey knows that if he is sitting in his office, he is left to sit there by President (who is willing to tolerate him)?

Believe me, if it was anyone else in place of President Musharraf, this monkey would have been rotting in prison. I cannot believe that he could have said all this . Where did this monkey of a judge said all these craps, can we read it all, is it on website somewhere?

It seems that CJ is now hallucinating. He has started thinking that he is Superman?

If u r going to call Cj a money..then allow me to use the terms mostly reserved for the President in most gathering…pretty please???

On second thought. When one doesn’t have an argument, one calls names. I am better than that. Happy times.

@antiobl

Flame dear! you are expecting a tad too much from Supreme Court.

Pres. Musharraf simply “suspended” the CJ and asked the high court to look into the matter.

Without going into legalies, CJ cannot “suspend” the Pres. Even if he does, who is he going to ask for a review? GHQ?

i dont have to expect anything. The constitution is loud and clear. Just wait a little more. President doesn’t have much of a case, if this goes into the Supreme Court..especially especially if he is wearing the unifrom.

[Reza_Pahlavi]

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

@Aalsi

I see no mention of the bar not filing a constitutional appeal against Mush’s re-election. It was the bar in the first place that made Musharraf sleepless in Rawalpindi. And they have already made their intentions very clear on this issue. I don’t see Musharraf lasting too long, Benazir or no Benazir. In fact,** Aitezaz **](WATANDOST: An Educational Blog About Religion, Politics and Security in South West Asia : Aitzaz Ahsan: A Lawyer who turned a Judge into a National Cause)was asked (on ARY) if he’d take up the bar’s case, and he said I won’t refuse to take up anything that doesn’t go against my conscience. A better read than this article would be to read what the CJ said in his speech just yesterday.

                “The day Pervez Musharraf announces he is standing for re-election, the bars are going to strike, the courts are going to close across Pakistan, and lawyers are going to be on the street,” he said.            
 Quote:
                “It is, I feel, the end of the road for the military,” he maintained. “It is the end of the road for Pervez Musharraf. Nobody should bet on him, not even the Americans.”   

Is someone telling you porkies? Please provide a link to the statement made by the CJ?

Pakistan Zindabad :jhanda:
[/QUOTE]

Well spotted :k: - somebody has indeed been caught out telling rather big porkies. :hehe:

Btw Aalsi, pork is haraam…thuck! :nono:

[Flame_of_Life]

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

oh I am sorry. I forgot to put a link to Aitezaz's interview in there. Well spotted indeed.

[Reza_Pahlavi]

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

People have to make deals in order to stop anarchy. If CJ sahib makes a deal with Pres. Musharraf. That's great.

In fact it is time for Shahbaz Sharif to make a deal as well.

Political, economic, and social stability is a must. And stability means one thing: power elite have made deals with each other.

Wealthy countries are what they are because their power elite made deals many decades (if not centuries) ago.

Here are few examples:

1. Top Japanese political parties are amalgamation of many smaller parties, who make a deal among each other to put a united candidate for PM position.

2. US politicians may sound so belligerent during primaries, then they make deals to put a united candidate.

3. Chinese military, bureaucracy, and communist party bosses all make deals to keep the country going.

Now I am glad to see BB, MQM, Prez are all making deals. Hopefully we'll see PML(N) will make deal too.

Remember why we got into military rule in 1999? Because BB / MQM / Mullahs refused to make deal with NS. So deal making is good.

Yesterday, the CJ said - *“Let bygones be bygones but we should learn lessons from our past,” *, which shows that the man wants to act responsibly - despite what others maybe hoping for. You are right that Shabhaz Sharif should make a deal as well, and I am certain he will as the election gets closer, and he impresses that upon his now rat5her lonely and obsessive brother.

[ehsan]

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

So BB and Mush two shaitans got together to continue the looting of Pakistan.

[king_faisal]

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

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

1. musharraf was elected president under the referendum which was held in 2002. 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. musharraf did get a vote of confidence from present assembly but vote of confidence is not the same as presidential election. in theory, under musharraf, there could have been multiple parliaments which could have given him multiple votes of confidence. 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.

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. criminals are not allowed to hold the office of president.

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.

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.

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

[king_faisal]

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

this is how dawn reported the vote of assembies in favour of musharraf:

http://dawn.com/2004/01/02/top1.htm

Musharraf wins vote of confidence

By Raja Asghar

ISLAMABAD, Jan 1: President Gen Pervez Musharraf won a vote of confidence from a parliamentary electoral college on Thursday and was declared elected in a process disputed by his political opponents.

The unprecedented vote, allowed by a new constitutional amendment, accorded legitimacy to Gen Musharraf’s military presidency after 14 months of noisy opposition protests that had paralyzed parliament.

…There was no provision in the pre-amended Constitution for a presidential vote of confidence but the new Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Bill passed by parliament in line with the government-MMA agreement added a new clause (8) to the Constitution’s Article 41 providing for a one-time vote of confidence for a “further affirmation” of Gen Musharraf’s presidency in return for his promise to relinquish the post of the chief of the army staff by Dec 31, 2O04…

[Reza_Pahlavi]

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

President re-election can happen earliest 15/16 September - less than 7 weeks away. I am sure BB and Musharraf, as well anyone else who has jumped on board will be fine tuning their agreements before then.

[Iconoclast]

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

Half of PML(Q) will joined PPP by that time.

[Captain1]

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

@Sa1eem

.

..

[Sa1eem]

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

@Flame_of_Life

U have raised questions that relate to the Constitution so I’ll use the document in my reply. All the articles here are fairly well explained and dont need additional comments so here we go.

Quote: Originally Posted by Sa1eem
*How can Supreme Court decide anything that they have no right to decide? *

**Flame of Life: **Correction. The Supreme Court has a very vast jurisdiction my friend. It is not even a debate whether the SC can declare President’s Musharraf candidature legal or not. Musharraf himself knows this much, otherwise he nor any of his predecessors would have gone to the SC for a certificate of approval.

Article 184](Chapter 2: "The Supreme Court of Pakistan." of Part VII: "The Judicature")

Brother, did I write anywhere that Supreme Court does not have vast jurisdiction power? Sure there is no debate regarding declaring legality or illegality of any matter by Supreme Court (as long as it is from constitution), that President Musharraf can be candidate of Presidency or not.

You wrote that ‘Supreme Court would be deciding on constitutional matter over a constitutional office’ and on that I wrote that ‘How can Supreme Court decide anything that they have no right to decide’. Am I wrong? You quoted article 184.

184. Original Jurisdiction of Supreme Court.
(1) The Supreme Court shall, to the exclusion of every other court, have original jurisdiction in any dispute between any two or more Governments.
Explanation.-In this clause, “Governments” means the Federal Government and the Provincial Governments.
(2) In the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred on it by clause (1), the Supreme Court shall pronounce declaratory judgments only.
(3) Without prejudice to the provisions of Article 199, the Supreme Court shall, if it considers that a question of public importance with reference to the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights conferred by Chapter I of Part II is involved have the power to make an order of the nature mentioned in the said Article.

Please point out, where it says in article 184 that Supreme Court can decide constitutional matter? What I understand is that Supreme Court can only interpret what is written in constitution, but could not decide anything other than interpret (if they decide, they decide what to interpret). Supreme Court does not have any jurisdiction that they could decide anything regarding constitutional matter (though they can decide what to interpret from the wordings in the constitution). The only jurisdiction they have is of interpreting constitutional matters, from what is written in the constitution.

Quote: Originally Posted by Sa1eem
Who would be President or not, or that President be in uniform or not, is not jurisdiction of Supreme Court but it is jurisdiction of Parliament.

**Flame of Life: **I am not sure what u mean when u say that it is the jurisdiction of the Parliament..but I’ll substitute it with “decision of the Parliament” for ease of understanding.

I meant what I wrote, that it is jurisdiction of Parliament to decide who should be President, or that if President can be in uniform or not. Parliament can change any constitution to comply with their wishes anytime. Sitting parliament when enact constitution or changes existing constitution, their interpretation is final.

As for Supreme Court, they can only interpret constitution on basis of wordings and if different meaning can be concluded from wording, Supreme Court could even assume intentions (if people that enacted constitution are not there in parliament). Hence, it is not jurisdiction of Supreme Court to decide anything. There jurisdiction is interpret (or explain) the constitution, that is all.

**Flame of Life: **I agree that it’s not for the SC to decide who is going to be the President but it can decide who is not going to be. In other words, it can disqualify a person from becoming President.

Now who can be President of Pakistan? He should be:
1: Muslim.
2: Pakistani
3: Qualified to become a member of Majlis-e-Shoora.

There r many qualifications for becoming an MNA, so I’ll just skip to the relevant disqualification clause here:

Article 63](Chapter 2: "Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)" of Part III: "The Federation of Pakistan"). Disqualifications for membership of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament).
(1) A person shall be disqualified from being elected or chosen as, and from being, a member of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament), if:-

d) he holds an office of profit in the service of Pakistan other than an office declared by law not to disqualify its holder; or
(e) he is in the service of any statutory body of any body which is owned or controlled by the Government or in which the Government has a controlling share or interest; or
…
Pretty self explanatory.

Yea, pretty self explanatory. Supreme Court cannot decide who can be President or even who cannot be President. For you to put some wording of constitution does not change that. Because that wording is wording that came from parliament and Parliament can decide to change wordings in the constitution anytime (ofcourse with 2/3 majority). Hence showing the wordings of constitution does not change the fact that Supreme Court cannot decide but that, they can only interpret what is there in the constitution already. [Just like a translator when translates Quran, they cannot decide what is there in Quran but translate what he understands from the wrodings in Quran].

Every thing that you showed being wording of constitution does not take away the jurisdiction right of parliament to keep or change those wordings. Supreme Court has no right to decide to keep or change the wordings and nevertheless, even to give judgment on old or new wordings. Supreme Court can only interpret the wording what would be there at the time of Supreme Court decisions.

[And the reason President met BB is obvious, that is to adjust the wordings according to desired requirements Else with 56 percent vote, President does not even needed to see BB]

Quote: Originally Posted by Sa1eem
*So, what is not in Supreme Court jurisdiction, how can they decide? And even if they would like to decide regardless of a thing is in their jurisdiction or not, *

**Flame of Life: **Repeat

Originally Posted by Sa1eem
*how would they enforce that? Please explain … *

**Flame of Life: **Article 190](Chapter 2: "The Supreme Court of Pakistan." of Part VII: "The Judicature").

Action in aid of Supreme Court. All executive and judicial authorities through out Pakistan shall act in aid of the Supreme Court.

Now that is very contiguous part of the constitution (article 190), right? Does it say that all institutions should aid Supreme Court? It only talks about executive and judicial authorities. Armed forces, police, agencies, intelligence … well, there are many institutional authorities, none are mentioned there. You know why? Because, according to constitution all institutional authorities (including judiciary) are under the authority of executives. It is expected that executives aids all other institutional authorities in what they need and in thus judiciary too. Executives use (or direct) other institutional authorities to aid Supreme Court.

I wrote this as contiguous issue because in country like Pakistan, executives are corrupts and immoral, hence their authority over other institutions is very weak. So weak that they do not even have absolute authority on institution that they can force institutions to aid anyone. Just imagine, Nawaz Shareef (or even Z A Bhutto) though that as head of executives (Prime Minister) he has authority over institutions as constitution demands, but what happened? Army kicked their ass. Now to think that judiciary can expect similar executives (rather weaker than Bhutto or Nawaz) to aid Supreme Court against military, I believe is living in fools paradise.

@Flame_of_Life

Quote: Originally Posted by Sa1eem
*Did Chief Justice say that? Gosh man, has CJ gone lunatic? *

**Flame of Life: **err no.

Why I wrote lunatic? Because only a lunatic person would think that executives would aid Chief justice if Chief justice would try to show that he is powerful enough to challenge armed forces. As it is obvious that if President would have support of armed forces than nothing would matter (that is different matter that President has lost support of armed forces, though I do not think he has).

Quote: Originally Posted by Sa1eem

‘The day President would announce he is standing for re-election … court are going to close across Pakistan’ … is that what he said? Kiya court CJ kay baap kee jageer hay? Well, court may go on strike, no problem … but to say that by CJ would be a lunatic statement.

**Flame of Life: **jazbaatiyaat. wallah. bhai jab I am not responding to the rest of your post because it is based on mis understanding.

Jazbatiaat … not really. CJ is not political leader and should not behave as one. Courts are institution that government forms to provide justice to people as it is duty of government to provide justice to people, not court. Judiciary is not there to dictate to the government but provide justice to the people (on behalf of government) and to facilitate government when interpretation of constitution is needed. Government could do whatever they like so that people get justice and that means, start as many courts as they want or even finish certain types of courts if government wants. CJ has got nothing to do regarding how government is run (just like in theory army generals got nothing to do). If CJ interfere they can if they have any force (as army generals do using armed forces under them). Anyhow, CJ as employee of the government could decide to start protest on grievances if they have, like if they want couple of days more holiday or pay rise :).

Quote: Originally Posted by Sa1eem
And yea, who is this monkey Justice that can say these craps? …. ‘He feel that it is end of road for the military? It is the end of road for Pervez Musharraf?’ Doesn’t this monkey knows that if he is sitting in his office, he is left to sit there by President (who is willing to tolerate him)?

*Believe me, if it was anyone else in place of President Musharraf, this monkey would have been rotting in prison. I cannot believe that he could have said all this . Where did this monkey of a judge said all these craps, can we read it all, is it on website somewhere? *

It seems that CJ is now hallucinating. He has started thinking that he is Superman?

**Flame of Life: **If u r going to call Cj a money..then allow me to use the terms mostly reserved for the President in most gathering…pretty please???

On second thought. When one doesn’t have an argument, one calls names. I am better than that. Happy times.

You know what? It seems that you commented without understanding the depth of the matter. Have you realized why I called Chief Justice ‘Monkey’? Do you think that I was calling name without any reason … a mere rhetoric and trying to degrade CJ? That is what is expected but I am sure you did not go into more relevant explanation, I wish you had :). Have you ever read me calling CJ a monkey before? Why I wrote that CJ is a monkey … and yea, monkey … not anything else? Have you ever thought about that?

*Read what I wrote: *‘And yea, who is this monkey Justice that can say these craps?’ ‘Where did this monkey of a judge said all these craps’,

Well, since you missed the point, let me tell you. What monkey is considered good at? Trying to imitate others, right?

If CJ has started saying all the craps that politician do, who CJ is imitating? … have a wild guess. …. Errrrrrrr politician … and thus what CJ becomes, some one that imitate, right … or Monkey, right? :), So, you can see that what I was calling, it was not rhetoric or show of frustration, but it had some meaning (at least to me).

Writing all this, in one aspect you are right. Supreme Court can take up task of interpretation constitution if any politician would appeal, asking Supreme Court to interpret. Under present constitution, President Musharraf may not be illegible to run for President Election and keep the uniform too. Supreme Court may also interpret constitution (present constitution) that President is not even eligible to run for Presidency.

I think that is the reason President met BB so that constitution can be changed if required. But then, in my opinion, if there would be problem, President has two other options other than getting constitution changed.

One: Forget election, postpone President Election indefinitely. If required, postpone General election indefinitely too. To start with, one year emergency would do and next year, he can suspend the assembly.

Two: Impose martial law.

Well, President has let media become independent but than that is not a big thing that cannot be changed. I think that future of independence of Pakistani media is bleak anyhow. Whenever there would be no Musharraf (as that has to happen someday), I do not think that any politician would allow such independent media, and unfortunately heavy curb would be imposed. I believe that media knows that too and are ready for that. They have taken this opportunity of independence to earn some money from past corrupts. Else we can see that when dealing with past corrupts, even now media show a meek entity, scared to ask any pinching questions.

[Sa1eem]

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

@Captain1

..

That post meant … ‘Intezaar Farmayea’

[Degas]

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

That may burst some of then ideas above…

http://www.dawn.com/2007/07/30/top1.htm

Uniformed president not acceptable: Benazir: ‘Extremists plotting to overthrow government’

ISLAMABAD, July 29: President Gen Pervez Musharraf must quit his military post if he is to continue as the country’s ruler, former prime minister Benazir Bhutto said on Sunday, after officials confirmed the two held secret talks on a possible power-sharing pact.

The PPP chairperson said she was interested in returning to the country and becoming its premier for a third time if the opportunity presented itself.

In an interview to a German magazine to be published on Monday, Ms Bhutto said there were ongoing talks with Gen Musharraf about her possible return to Pakistan.

She could be jailed on charges of corruption upon re-entering the country, which she said she planned to do by December.

“But I will go back regardless of whether the talks with Musharraf are successful or not,” she said, adding that she would seek protection against prosecution from Pakistani courts.

“I am doing what I must because my country is mired in a deep political crisis.” She said she would fight Gen Musharraf before the country’s highest tribunal if he tried to win a new term from the old parliament before new elections are held.

“The army must stop governing the country. The military must respect decisions of the government and be held accountable before the parliament,” Ms Bhutto said.

In several interviews on Sunday, Ms Bhutto would not confirm or deny she held talks with Gen Musharraf in a meeting that officials said took place on Friday in Abu Dhabi.

President Musharraf, who returned home overnight from a two-day visit to the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, also stayed silent on the issue.

But the PPP leader said her party had long been in talks with the government about restoring the civilian rule. “But there are some matters on which there are two opinions and we have to look further into these issues.”

“We do not accept President Musharraf in uniform,” she told a TV channel. “Our stand is that, and I stick to my stand.”

President Musharraf had no immediate comment, his spokesman Rashid Qureshi said.

An alliance between the two could strengthen Gen Musharraf by bringing the secular, liberal opposition into his government amid concern about a rise in militancy, a move Pakistan’s western allies would welcome.

Ms Bhutto, who has previously condemned Gen Musharraf as a dictator, told Sky News: “We stand at the crossroads, and very critical choices have to be made between the forces of the past and the forces of the future. There is militancy, terrorism and violence. My government and I have had the experience of dealing with it, if we get another opportunity, I would certainly take the challenge.”She accused Gen Musharraf of adopting an ‘appeasement policy’ towards extremists that had only strengthened them.

“We must pursue these people and take them to court,” she said, adding that she had made mistakes during her time in office from 1993 to 1996 in trying to work with the Taliban to pacify the country.

The former prime minister warned of a looming Islamist revolution mounted from the country’s religious schools.

“The Red Mosque was just a warm-up for what will happen if the religious schools are not disarmed,” Ms Bhutto said.

She added that Islamist extremist leaders were plotting an overthrow of President Musharraf’s government and had converted madressahs in Pakistani cities into military headquarters with well-stocked arsenals.

Minister for Railways Sheikh Rashid Ahmed said President Musharraf and Ms Bhutto “held a successful meeting” in Abu Dhabi on Friday, without elaborating. He said Friday’s meeting was the second meeting of the leaders, the first being in January.

Parliamentary Affairs Minister Sher Afgan Khan Niazi said that President Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto had held talks in Abu Dhabi. “I can confirm the meeting, there is no doubt about that,” he told Reuters.

Gen Musharraf is expected to seek re-election when his term expires in October, and he wants the current crop of politicians in federal and provincial assemblies — who supported him five years ago and have not faced election since — to vote again.

The opposition says the 2002 elections of those representatives were fixed and insists that lawmakers chosen in parliamentary elections due at the end of 2007 should elect the next head of state. Observers say the new crop of lawmakers may be less inclined to support Gen Musharraf.

A pact would likely require Gen Musharraf to lead changes to the Constitution to remove a ban on anyone serving as prime minister more than twice, and make sure corruption charges that have dogged Ms Bhutto for years go away. Both moves would allow Ms Bhutto, who served as prime minister once in the 1980s and again in the 1990s, to become premier again.

In exchange, Ms Bhutto’s party might agree to support a presidential vote before the parliamentary elections with Gen Musharraf still in uniform, if he gave assurances he would resign from the military soon after the legislative elections.—Agencies

[Mr_Fraudia]

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

but but but but...she was trying to make a deal with a dictator GASP
that does nto change now..does it.

[Flame_of_Life]

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

@Captain1

..

Edit: Saleem bhai I’ll reply to ur post but in the interest of debate, I’ll try to keep it as concise as possible. Really hard to go through para’s and para’s of circular arguments.

to borrow ur term “intizar famaiyay”.

[Reza_Pahlavi]

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

@Degas

A pact would likely require Gen Musharraf to lead changes to the Constitution to remove a ban on anyone serving as prime minister more than twice, and make sure corruption charges that have dogged Ms Bhutto for years go away. Both moves would allow Ms Bhutto, who served as prime minister once in the 1980s and again in the 1990s, to become premier again.

In exchange, Ms Bhutto’s party might agree to support a presidential vote before the parliamentary elections with Gen Musharraf still in uniform, if he gave assurances he would resign from the military soon after the legislative elections.—Agencies

BB says many things in public for her mollify her party faithful, but always agrees to something rather different in the background.

[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