جوکہتےہیں کہ عزت مآب جناب جسٹس وقاراحمدسیٹھ کی غدارقاتل مشرف کوسنائی گئی سزا غیرانسانی,غیرشرعی ہےوہ تاریخ اسلام ضرور پڑھ لیں جب غزوہ خندق کے دوران ایک میثاق مدینہ کی خلاف ورزی کرنے والے یہودی کی لاش کو منڈیر پر لٹکایا گیا تاکہ دوسرے سازشوں کو متبنہ کیاجائے
وہ وقت جب رسول اللہ ﷺ کی بہادر پھوپھی نے میدان جنگ میں یہودیوں کی سازش ناکام بنا دی](https://www.dailyqudrat.pk/351866/)
.](https://www.dailyqudrat.pk/351866/)
dailyqudrat.pk
When was this term added to constitution? 2010?
When did he allegedly break the constitution? 2007
Article 6 is ammended on 2010 . Cl. in 1973 and 2010 both mentioned below
2010:
High treason.—****[SUP]1/SUP Any person who abrogates or subverts or suspends or holds in abeyance, or attempts or conspires to abrogate or subvert or suspend or hold in abeyance, the Constitution by use of force or show of force or by any other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason.]
1973 :
(1) Any person who abrogates or attempts or conspires to abrogate, subverts or attempts or conspires to subvert the Constitution by use of force or show of force or by other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason.
Give it up. You have no chance of winning this debate. Zero, zilch, nada.
OK. Thanks.
Do not get me wrong.
If I write for and against Musharraf actions, it would be another twist on the discussion.
But here we are discussing the verdict only.
1- The wordings in the constitution are still different as anyone who can read English can see.
It does look very clear that the amendment in 2010 was made to get Musharraf on the hook.
He did suspend constitution temporarily but albeit partially.
He did NOT dissolve parliaments. Politicians were free to function as far as I understood.
Most or all of his actions were against Judiciary (and media) for a “short time”. (6 weeks)?
That’s Abeyance. Not really breaking/abrogating etc. the constitution.
By the way,
Controversial or not, Musharraf’s actions were VALIDATED by the SC or judges each time.
2- Now the separate issue is how can anyone put this in the context of article 232?
3- Mr. Khosa was sacked by Musharraf.
Now that has nothing to do with him giving this absurd verdict and also calling for even Musharraf’s dead body being hanged? Right? Really?
Khosa showed his extreme hatred for Musharraf by saying that. He is blinded and deafened by his hatred and simply being a despicable person to ask for desecrating/humiliating a dead body.
4- Mr. Khosa said he was given many offers for bribes or whatever but he refused since he wanted to do the justice.
Great.
But this man also said he was given offer to have fellowship at two foreign country institutions. Which he accepted.
Now someone connects the dots. Musharraf case still can have many ulterior motives from different parties, inside or outside.
Finally!
This so called justice Khosa should never be allowed to leave the country unless he is investigated, examined closely or be tried himself. You never know he could have been paid off or bribed by unknown sources.
I take this case as pure of academic nature. Else , honestly speaking I don’t think musharraf as traitor to Pakistan. By suspending constitution. He did it as he believed it to he for betterment of country. But this at the end gives benefit and extension to his ruling. Which in principle is totally in correct.
further this hopefully will end the advantures done by army men.
As army men had tried to correct bloody civilians many a time but each time they fail and put pk in further deeper hole.
Let the people go eliminate bad politicians by regular process. ThereThere cannot be any short cut for that
It is a good response. But is it enough to win the debate?
I doubt it.