Re: Musharraf offers olive branch - compromise on judges
May I remind you that if you break and laws and do illegal things you go to jail?
Almost 90% of these politicians should be behind bars then.
Re: Musharraf offers olive branch - compromise on judges
The case is still ongoing:
http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Business/?id=1.0.1857678352
http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/feb-2008/21/index5.php
Moreover, I think its completely intellectually dishonest of you to fall back on the NRO in an effort to defend Zardari. How, pray tell, can you possibly reject Musharraf as being “treasonous” and an “illegal president,” then hold up an ordinance he unilaterally issued to vindicate your beloved Zardari? It makes no sense at all.
May I also remind you that even the most hardcore Sindhi nationalist wadero isn’t blind or stupid enough to think that Asif Zardari hasn’t “broken the law” or “done illegal things.” If Musharraf deserves jail time, so do Zardari and Sharif (and just about every other major politician in Pakistan).
Re: Musharraf offers olive branch - compromise on judges
Confrontational politics is harmful to the interests of Pakistan, anything that can agreed beween the politicians has to be welcomed.
Re: Musharraf offers olive branch - compromise on judges
Itna ghusa sehat ke leay thik nahin hay. Mush came to power through backdoor after breaking the constitution, which is more severe crime than corruption. Subbotaging Country's consititution deserves death penalty. Waisay bhi Mush ka chal chalao waqat aa gya hay. Usay sharafat aor thorhi buhat jo izat bachi hay us ko sanbal ke rakhay aor "Kursi" chorh day.
Re: Musharraf offers olive branch - compromise on judges
Mush came to power through backdoor after breaking the constitution, which is more severe crime than corruption. Subbotaging Country's consititution deserves death penalty.
I see. But looting your impoverished countrymen of billions, and having your political opponents murdered, and turning Karachi into an ethnic war zone deserve being promoted to PM?
IWaisay bhi Mush ka chal chalao waqat aa gya hay. Usay sharafat aor thorhi buhat jo izat bachi hay us ko sanbal ke rakhay aor "Kursi" chorh day.
Waisay, Nawaz Sharif aur Bhutto khandaan ka vaqt to kab na aa gaya. Un ko bhi apni thori bahut bacchi hui izzat (aur apni looti hui daulat) ko le kar kahin Dubai ya London vapas chale jana chahiye. Lekin lagta hai ke Pakistan ki awam chahti hai ke un ko kuch carore aur chorane ke moqa diya jaye.
Re: Musharraf offers olive branch - compromise on judges
The case is still ongoing
I wont be after the new govt takes over.
[quote]
Moreover, I think its completely intellectually dishonest of you to fall back on the NRO in an effort to defend Zardari. How, pray tell, can you possibly reject Musharraf as being "treasonous" and an "illegal president," then hold up an ordinance he unilaterally issued to vindicate your beloved Zardari? It makes no sense at all.
[/quote]
It makes perfect sense. Mushrraf will do anything to save his kursi & NRO was part of it.
[quote]
May I also remind you that even the most hardcore Sindhi nationalist wadero isn't blind or stupid enough to think that Asif Zardari hasn't "broken the law" or "done illegal things." If Musharraf deserves jail time, so do Zardari and Sharif (and just about every other major politician in Pakistan).
[/QUOTE]
Maybe you're not aware of this, but Zardari spent about 12 years in jail w/o ever being convicted of anything. Now in context of sentencing guidelines in Pakistan 14 years equals life time in jail.
If you spend 12 years in jail w/o ever been convicted of anything...the man is either totally innocent & spent 12 years in jail for crimes he did not commit or govt is totally incompetent & and failed to prove anything against him. In either case its govts fault.
As for NS, he was elected PM who over thrown by an army chief. Overthrowing elected govt is crime defined as treason and person committing such is eligible for death as per law.
Re: Musharraf offers olive branch - compromise on judges
I wont be after the new govt takes over.
I doubt that. Even if the Pakistani govt. stops participating, the Swiss still have every right to prosecute crimes committed in their country. The investigation has been ongoing for a decade now...I don't think theyre going to quash it just like that.
In any case, it seems like you have no problem with his cronies in parliament getting him of the hook. So corruption is only bad when military rulers engage in it.
It makes perfect sense. Mushrraf will do anything to save his kursi & NRO was part of it.
And again...you can't condemn Musharraf as an unconstitutional traitor who deserves to die...and then hold up his diktat as proof that Zardari should be free. If Musharraf was an illegitimate, treasonous ruler, when why are you so keen on enforcing his ordinances??? Its utterly absurd.
Maybe you're not aware of this, but Zardari spent about 12 years in jail w/o ever being convicted of anything. Now in context of sentencing guidelines in Pakistan 14 years equals life time in jail.
If you spend 12 years in jail w/o ever been convicted of anything...the man is either totally innocent & spent 12 years in jail for crimes he did not commit or govt is totally incompetent & and failed to prove anything against him. In either case its govts fault.
As for NS, he was elected PM who over thrown by an army chief. Overthrowing elected govt is crime defined as treason and person committing such is eligible for death as per law.
If he's innocent then he should have no problem going to Switzerland and facing the charges. He should be able to clear both his name, and that of his deceased wife.
As for Nawaz Sharif, the man was willing to crash a plane with 200 people on board, just to make a political point.
Judges restoration, YES/NO? Clarification (Threads Merged)
Another false dawn for the supporters of the judges - or is it?
I believe PPP and PML (N) should refuse to take the oath from President Musharaf if the judges are not restored. Otherwise the elctorate and Aitizaz Ahsan will not be best pleased.
http://thenews.jang.com.pk/updates.asp?id=38765
**Judges restoration news a mischief: President House **
Friday, February 29, 2008
ISLAMABAD: Rubbishing the Indian media news relating to the reinstatement of judges, President House sources termed it made-up and monkey business.
Topmost sources said that the restoration of any deposed judge could be done in accordance with the laid down procedure in the constitution and added that no judge could be reinstated without the constitutional amendment made by the two-third majority in the House.
Sources told senior journalist, Saleh Zafar that no such proposal of the restoration of judges was under consideration of the government, while such concocted news were being aired through the Indian media mischievously. The government would refrain from taking any extra-constitutional measure, sources told.
Indian media in their reports had claimed that the government was seriously considering the reinstatement of the deposed judges sans CJP and CJs of Sindh and Peshawar High Courts.
Re: Judges restoration news a mischief: President House.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23297909-2703,00.html
Besieged Musharraf offers deal on judges
* Font Size: Decrease Increase
* Print Page: Print
Bruce Loudon, South Asia correspondent | March 01, 2008
PAKISTAN President Pervez Musharraf has offered a deal to the winners of last week’s elections - to reinstate the chief justice if moves to impeach him in the new parliament are abandoned.
In a sudden backflip, Mr Musharraf reportedly sent an urgent message to Asif Ali Zardari, leader of the Pakistan People’s Party, offering to restore chief justice Iftikhar Chaudhry and more than 60 other judges to their posts.
In return, Mr Musharraf, his position increasingly isolated amid signs the US is backing away from his leadership, sought assurances that moves to impeach him would be quashed.
Chief justice Chaudhry has been held under house arrest since the then General Musharraf declared a state of emergency on November 3. His reinstatement, with that of other judges, is regarded as the key issue in Pakistan’s political turmoil.
Last week, even after voters had spurned him and the party that supported him, Mr Musharraf boasted he could conceive of no circumstances in which chief justice Chaudhry could be restored to the Supreme Court.
But an official was quoted yesterday as saying that “the presidency is (now) ready to restore the judges provided they don’t sit on benches hearing cases against the President”.
The official indicated Mr Musharraf had caved in to other key demands from the victorious coalition, saying: “President Musharraf has also agreed to forgo powers of sacking parliament and appointing service chiefs.” Sources close to Mr Zardari, widower of assassinated opposition leader Benazir Bhutto, said the PPP leader had promised to discuss the offer with the new Government.
It seems unlikely to prove acceptable to the new “grand coalition”, which believes that Mr Musharraf has no choice but to accept “the mandate of the people” and quit office after the party aligned to him was beaten in last week’s elections.
The offer is also unlikely to be acceptable to the powerful community of lawyers, which has led agitation against Mr Musharraf since he first attempted to sack chief justice Chaudhry on March 9 last year. Coalition leaders and lawyers are demanding the chief justice be restored to hear cases about Mr Musharraf’s legitimacy.
Mr Musharraf affirmed yesterday that he had no intention of resigning, telling parliamentarians from his defeated Pakistan Muslim League (Qaid) party: “I am elected for five years and will continue to play my role. I will not resign.”
Washington indicated a shift in its support for Mr Musharraf. US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte, regarded as the most determined exponent of the Bush administration’s embrace of Mr Musharraf, spoke of Washington’s support for Pakistan’s people rather than the President.
In testimony before the US Senate’s foreign relations committee, Mr Negroponte made scant reference to Mr Musharraf, emphasising that the US “looks forward to working with the new Pakistani leadership”.
He told senators “Pakistan has been indispensable” in the fight against extremists and that the US “looks forward to working with the leaders who emerge”.
Meanwhile, a suspected US missile strike destroyed an al-Qa’ida and Taliban hideout in a Pakistani tribal area on Thursday, killing 13 alleged militants including several Arabs, security officials said yesterday.
Residents of Azam Warsak village in South Waziristan said a house was blown up by a missile fired from a pilotless drone.
US drones have launched several strikes on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, targeting members of Osama bin Laden’s network, although Islamabad refuses to confirm such attacks due to issues of national sovereignty.
“A house used as a den by al-Qa’ida and Afghan Taliban militants was hit by a missile. Thirteen people were killed and around 10 were wounded,” a senior Pakistani security official said.
A security source based in the northwestern city of Peshawar, which adjoins the lawless tribal belt, said the missile was fired by a US drone at about 2am on Thursday.
Another security official said most of the dead were Arabs.
- Additional reporting: AFP
Re: Judges restoration news a mischief: President House.
^^
The above is the same recycled story you posted yesterday. :)
Re: Judges restoration news a mischief: President House.
One’s that you conveniently ignore 
Posting a story on another thread does not take away from its relevance
Re: Judges restoration news a mischief: President House.
^^ The above is the same recycled story you posted yesterday. :)
Why would press invented stories?
Re: Judges restoration news a mischief: President House.
Why would press invented stories?
For mischief making and good circulation. :)
Re: Judges restoration, YES/NO? Clarification (Threads Merged)
I do not know why some Pakistanis live in illusions? :) What I can see, there are no ways corrupt judges along with their corrupt Sardar Iftikhar can get restored unless President decides, Chief Justice Dogar agrees, or PML helps. Reason is obvious, that is constitution under normal circumstances does not allow Prime Minister or anyone in government to sack current Chief Justice and appoint someone as Chief Justice or even judge.
New government may claim that corrupt Iftikhar was wrongly dismissed and thus may try to reinstate corrupt iftikhar using executive order. But even government cannot do that and their executive order of reinstating Judges would get contested in Supreme Court. I do not think that government would get the judgment from Supreme Court in their favour.
Another way is to challenge President's act of sacking Iftikhar in Supreme Court as illegal. Now, it is not government that can decide legality and illegality (lawful and unlawful) of anything, as only Supreme Court can decided that. I do not think that government would get anywhere using this route too, as Supreme Court would give judgment that Prime Minister with consultation of Cabinet informed President of dire situation in the country, and thus under the advice of President, Chief of army imposed emergency in the country and asked all judges to take oath under PCO that many judges declined and thus were retired.
Third situaion would be to amend constitution to get power to reinstate pre 3rd Nov Judiciary. For that, government would need 2/3 majority in NA that they do not have. Even if government had that 2/3 numbers in NA, then constitutional amendment would go to Senate for approval where again government would need 2/3 majority that government do not have (unless PML joins in to change the constitution).
Forth way is to use force to reinstate judges taking law in their own hand. Well, when it would come to force, President would order army who by Law is under President, and thus army would have to act against government and would arrest anyone breaking the law that is defined by constitution and interpreted by Supreme Court. Well, if force would be used by people in government, then most likely President would use that as excuse to dissolve the parliament.
Note: It is not just 2/3 majority but government would need vote of 2/3 and that means, even if they have 2/3 majority than all those members have to vote too and should not abstain.
As for impeachment of President, government would need 2/3 votes from combined NA and Senate members (Again, not just to have so many members but 2/3 members should vote and not abstain from voting). That is also impossible as there are 342 NA members (after 60 women and 10 minorities are added to 272 elected members) plus there are 100 Senate members. That means, there are 442 combined strength of NA plus Senate. So government would need at least 295 votes. This number is impossible for any government to get unless PML joins them for impeachment against President.
Another thing is that, at present 52-B is part of constitution. If President would think that impeachment is possible, President could easily dissolve NA using 52-B (though President could use one or another excuse to validate the sacking). In such situation, sacked government can go to Supreme Court and most likely Supreme Court would hold the decision.
So, whatever anyone says or write about reinstatement of corrupt judiciary or impeachment of President, it is just dream far away from reality and nothing else. So for those who are dreaming, they could keep dreaming :).
Actually, situation at present is that, if PML (plus pro-Musharraf parties in Senate) would not cooperate, this parliament would be a toothless tiger. Reason is that, government they would not get Senate majority, they would need ordinances to run the government. But if President would not cooperate than it would be difficult to even get ordinances to run the government.
[Another thing to remember is that, though government could not do anything but even if government was able to and tries to reinstate judges without going through proper procedures, claiming that what President Musharraf and past government did was illegal, then future government would do the same about anything that present government would do without going through proper procedures. Thus, if anyone have complains or questions what President Musharraf and past government did, for instance retiring judges, then only thing they should do is to go to Supreme Court].
Re: Judges restoration, YES/NO? Clarification (Threads Merged)
I trust the opinion of Fukhruddin G Ibrahim who is the most unbiased and most respected member of our legal fertinity in the country…compared to the above mentioned biased legal opinion…which does not quote any known legal expert of the country…and is also self contradictory..
..
The argument of F.G.Ibrahim is based on the same argument given by the above mentioned poster (according to article 209)…who is selectively using this argument in one case but not applying the same principle in another situation…he is using the argument to refrain the parliament to depose the current (PCO) judges…but not applying the same principle to the sacking of judges by Musharraf…sacking of judges in any circumstances normal or abnormal…is only possible in accordance with article 209…according to the constitution of Pakistan…(ignoring the decree issued by one single person which has no legal binding according to the constitution of Pakistan…and even taking past precedents in to account needs 2/3 validation of the parliament)…in short constitution of Pakistan does not allow the sacking of judges in violation with article 209 under any circumstances…normal or abnormal…It’s very simple..
**If the removal of the judges was illegal, it doesn’t need to be undone by an act of parliament, and if it was legal it cannot be undone by an act of parliament. **
Even pro-(illegal)president lawyers are not validating the arguments on these absurd grounds as suggested by the post above…and the basis of their arguments are against the appointment on political grounds…and as they fear the restored judges after reinstatement might come out with venegance…therefore their restoration could be termed as political…
Thus on these grounds they are advocating that even if the judges are restored, the restored judges should not to sit in any bench hearing cases against President Musharrraf
http://dawn.com/2008/03/01/top6.htm
Judges’ issue to tax legal brains for long
By Nasir Iqbal
ISLAMABAD, Feb 29: The fate of the present chief justice if deposed chief justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry is reinstated has become a top judicial issue with many solutions on offer but a way out appearing hard to find.
Top constitutional experts are of the opinion that the new government could restore the deposed superior court judges without any constitutional amendment because they were removed ‘unconstitutionally’ by President Pervez Musharraf as the army chief when he imposed the state of emergency on Nov 3 last year.
But the presidency, on the other hand, appears to be inflexible on the issue of reinstatement of the judges. President Musharraf’s spokesman Rashid Qureshi told private television channels that neither the deposed chief justice nor the superior court judges would be restored.
However, top constitutional expert Fakhruddin G. Ibrahim told Dawn: “The elevation to fill the vacant posts of removed judges during the emergency rule was illegal because their appointment was done without consultation with the lawful chief justice (Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry).”
The future coalition government, he said, could order security forces and police to immediately end detention of the deposed chief justice and other judges. It could also provide required administrative support to the judges so that they could perform their duty without any hindrance, he added.
“Plain reading of Article 5 of the Constitution along with Articles 209 and 190 will suggest that judges can only be removed by invoking Article 209 (Supreme Judicial Council), therefore these judges are still holding their respective offices,” he argued.
Mr Ibrahim said he had briefed a high-level meeting of three likely partners in a future coalition on modalities to resolve the present judicial crisis on Wednesday.
**Article 5 requires loyalty to the statement and obedience to the Constitution and law by the citizens, while Article 190 commands all executive and judicial authorities to come in aid of the Supreme Court whereas Article 209 deals with the Supreme Judicial Council used to remove judges.
“I have told them that this is their duty to let the judges perform their judicial function.” He dismissed as rubbish the opinion that a two-thirds majority in parliament would be required to restore the deposed judges.**
“In fact this two-thirds majority will be needed to validate the amendments made to the Constitution during the emergency period, without which the pre-emergency constitution will hold the field.”
Mr Ibrahim is drafting a declaration disapproving all actions taken during the emergency rule for being illegal, but did not comment when asked on whose behalf he was making the document and when it would be read or tabled and by whom.
Former Supreme Court Bar Association president Munir A. Malik is of the view that the present chief justice could be reverted to his old position with the reinstatement of Justice Iftikhar as the chief justice.
Without parliament validating amendments introduced during the emergency rule, the Constitution would be as it was prior to the emergency, he added.
“I have told Asif Zardari during my meeting with him to de-link the judges’ issue with the constitutional package his party is formulating involving judges’ term of appointment, their salaries and other packages,” he said.
Advocate Iftikhar Gillani said the removal of judges was always done through Article 209 and without validation of amendments made to the Constitution the situation of Nov 2 would remain in the field.
**However, a senior Supreme Court lawyer opposed the reinstatement of deposed judges and said the Constitution did not contemplate appointment as well as restoration of judges on political grounds. “This is such a big issue that it has the potential to shatter the entire body politic,” he told Dawn, requesting anonymity.
“The new government will be in trouble if it restores Justice Iftikhar and other judges because they will come with vengeance and thus will become controversial and create infighting,” he added.**
Re: Judges restoration, YES/NO? Clarification (Threads Merged)
^ are you ready for 50 pages long explanation and dismissal of your post by Sa1eem?
Re: Judges restoration, YES/NO? Clarification (Threads Merged)
… Anyhow:
Two judges can have entirely two different opinions on same subject and can give two different verdicts. Fukhruddin G Ibrahim is retired. He is not Chief Justice of Pakistan. He is not even Judge. Chief Justice of Pakistan is Dogar and if any judgment needs to come, it has to come from Chief Justice Dogar and current judges of Supreme Court.
Another thing is that, no judge was sacked on or after 3rd November. All arguments on this basis are misinformation and political ranting. Judges got removed because they did not take oath under PCO and thus declined to perform duty as Judges under PCO (current constitution at that time). So there could be no argument that judges were removed using article A or article B of constitution, because judges themselves declined to do their job and thus lost their job. Reason is that, at the time these judges got removed, constitution was in abeyance and current constitution was PCO. On the other hand, constitution talks about sacking or removal of judges, but not about judges not taking oath and thus losing their jobs because they declined to perform duty under existing constitution (PCO).
So, important fact one should remember is that, all judges who were removed on or after 3rd Nov, they declined to take new oath when emergency was declared and their removal was not due to any reason but due to they themselves declining to take oath. Thus, if case would go to Supreme Court, it could not be about sacking of judges but it could be about judges not taking oath and thus removing themselves as they declined to perform duty as Judges. One can understand the case of judges this way:
Can judge work as judge if constitution is put in abeyance and ‘Provisional Constitutional Order’ is introduced, judges asked to take oath under this PCO, and judges decline to take oath on this PCO?
Obviously they could not work as judges because new ‘provisional constitution order’ is introduced and they did not took oath under that existing constitution, so they have to leave job because it is requirement of judges to work and give judgments under particular constitution that exists in the country while they are working. They could not work under constitution that is in abeyance and new law in the country exists for time being under PCO.
If question would arises that Judges decline to take oath under PCO because they considered that taking oath under PCO was illegal, than argument would be that if they considered PCO as illegal then their post as judges were illegal in the first place, as all of them were holding the post of judges on PCO that came in 1999. So, removal of Judges who were holding their post illegally could not be illegal. 
Re: Judges restoration, YES/NO? Clarification (Threads Merged)
Length of the argument does not neccsssarily mean the intellectual content of the argument…if you take out the infamous sheytani doctrine of neccessity…invented and applied only in Pakistan during the past…no legal expert in the world can validate the arguments such as these…all the calculations for 2/3 majority are unneccessary…because if the sacking of judges was legal…no act of parliament can undo it…it is up to the newly elected political forces to validate or invalidate the actions of 3rd November..as legal or ilegal.
I have already stated what I had to say on the issue…50 pages or 100 pages…I do not intend to add anything else…for me doctrine of neccessity is an evil concept..and people who believe in this concept do not believe in supremecy of law..anf if you don’t believe in supremecy of law there is no point discussing law like an expert…
It will be better to base the argument on supremecy of guns…atleast it will be honest…
Re: Judges restoration, YES/NO? Clarification (Threads Merged)
Yes you are right. There was no army at SC on Nov 3, no judge was sacked, everything was peaceful that day 
Re: Judges restoration, YES/NO? Clarification (Threads Merged)
The fact is that CJ was humiliated two times for his independent decisions and other judges sacked because they did not take oath under PCO, is a great injustice to them. The new government has to restore these judges without delay as they are the victims of one person's love for power and glory.