Re: Musharraf returns
^ I am not sure, I couldnt figure out the Chitral connection (your post has cleared the dust). I thought that his safest bet is Karachi and that too with MQM's help.
Bhutto started the famous Lawari Tunnel but the work was stopped after him . He tried to complete it . It is not yet complete but now being used . He thinks people of Chitral will consider him as they voted for PPP for decades .
I don't know about Qasoor .
Re: Musharraf returns
Musharraf to enjoy full security
As former president Pervez Musharraf is expected to arrive in Islamabad on March 28, security forces have begun making arrangements for his time in the city.
He will live in Bani Gala , Close to his old tout Imran Khan’s more than 182000 Sq yards home .
I will be very happy to see him more secure and safe in Machh jail in the case of Shaheed Akbar Bugti .
I recommend a free and fair trial for him . If a death sentence is awarded to him , He should be hanged in Dera Bugti in front of public .
Re: Musharraf returns
Hassan Nisar’s views on Musharraf and Imran. Musharraf’s only problem was legitimacy. Freedom of media is his biggest gift to the nation
Also listen to what he’s to say about the two status quo parties
Re: Musharraf returns
Now that the puppet master is back, Mush should be appointed as Deputy Care Taker Prime Minister of Pakistan.
Re: Musharraf returns
Kaka bhai inn do choron sey phir bhi behtar tha ... just my opinion
Re: Musharraf returns
Kaka bhai inn do choron sey phir bhi behtar tha ... just my opinion
For short term, yes, I would agree. For the long run, I don't think so. Just as a pointer, remember that western "aid" to Pakistan increases substantially during military regimes.
In terms of economic stability, control of corruption and street crime, Zia's time was comparatively good too.
Re: Musharraf returns
Mush made many mistakes for sure such as missing persons saga, attack on CJ, NRO, emergency of 2007 etc. but economically he wasn't all that bad
I agree with Mush's handling of Lal Masjid (a mosque is not a place for militancy or to keep weapons), disagree only with the timing. He should not have waited for 6 months and let the problem escalate
ground invasion of FATA was also wrong imo. That's not to say you should not go after known terrorists
agree with you re. Zia. inflation was under control during his time
Re: Musharraf returns
For short term, yes, I would agree. For the long run, I don't think so. Just as a pointer, remember that western "aid" to Pakistan increases substantially during military regimes.
Have you heard that in the servant quarters of ‘Raiwand Mahal’ or ‘Bilawal Mahal’?
I am asking you because what I have seen in different articles and especially aid statistics, average yearly aid to Pakistan during Musharraf period was much less than what Pakistan got once Musharraf left power. Situation is such that Pakistan got substantially more aid (mostly American but from other countries too) in last 5 years of PPP rule than in 8 years of Musharraf rule.
[quote]
In terms of economic stability, control of corruption and street crime, Zia's time was comparatively good too.
[/QUOTE]
As far as Zia time compare to Musharraf time:
1: Pakistan did much better economically during Musharraf time.
2: Corruption actually started in big way during Zia time and kept increasing until when Musharraf came to power, as during his rule, corruption was there but much reduced.
3: ‘Law and order’ situation was better during Zia time (as that is what he inherited from Bhutto) compared to Musharraf time, but then, seed of gun culture and terrorism fitna was sown during Zia time, who fooled masses in the name of religion, Saudi influence, and American sponsored Jihad.
Fitna Zia sown is main reason for most law and order problems in post Zia era, though that problem amplified when Musharraf tried to tackle the fitna after Sept 2001. Nevertheless, law and order situation during Musharraf period was much better than post-Musharraf period
Re: Musharraf returns
**From Wikipedia, though I can give you more references:
Foreign aid to Pakistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
**U.S. financial aid to Pakistan since the September 11, 2001 attacks
Between 2002-2010, Pakistan received approximately $18 billion[SUP][7]](Foreign aid to Pakistan - Wikipedia)[/SUP] in military and economic aid from the United States. In February 2010, the administration of U.S. President Barack Obamarequested an additional $3 billion in aid, for a total of $20.7 billion.[SUP][8]](Foreign aid to Pakistan - Wikipedia)
[/SUP]
[Note: Throughout Musharraf period(8 years) Pakistan received total of around $10 billion, but by 2010, or in 2 and half years after Musharrf period, Pakistan already received more than $10 billion dollars. Since then, what I know, Pakistan received at least $10 billion dollars more in American aid (or more than $20 billion dollars as Aid from USA alone in less than 5 years) … as apart of military and economic related aid, since 2009 Pakistan is also getting ‘enhanced partnership’ related aid].
**
Military and economic aid**
[Note: Before 2002, Pakistan was receiving negligible aid, due to military rule. In this data, IMF and world bank loan is not included even though that comes with American nod, and is considered Aid (as it comes with low interest rate), though it is not considered as American aid].
[TABLE=“class: wikitable sortable jquery-tablesorter”]
[TH=“class: headerSort, bgcolor: #F2F2F2, align: center”]Year[/TH]
[TH=“class: headerSort, bgcolor: #F2F2F2, align: center”]Military (USD in billions)[/TH]
[TH=“class: headerSort, bgcolor: #F2F2F2, align: center”]Economic (USD in billions)[/TH]
2002
1.36
1.233 for 2002 to 2004
2003
1.500
1.233 for 2002 to 2004
2004
1.200
1.233 for 2002 to 2004
2005
1.313
.338
2006
1.260
.539
2007
1.115
.567
2008
1.435
.507
2009
1.689
1.366
2010
1.232
1.409
2011
1.685
unknown
Total
11.740 billion[SUP][14]](Foreign aid to Pakistan - Wikipedia)[/SUP]
6.08 billion[SUP][15]](Foreign aid to Pakistan - Wikipedia)[/SUP]
Note: Look at the figures pre 2008 (Musharraf period), and compare that with post 2008 period (democratic period). When evaluating, do not get mistaken and consider that $1.233 bn economic aid Pakistan got each year from 2002-2004, as that amount is total amount Pakistan received in 3 years between 2002-2004.
Plus:United Kingdom has pledged £](Pound sign - Wikipedia)665 million to Pakistan from 2009-2013.[SUP][16]](Foreign aid to Pakistan - Wikipedia)[/SUP]
Re: Musharraf returns
[TABLE=“align: center”]
**
Commission submits report on missing persons in SC**](Geo News: Latest News Breaking, Live Videos, World, Entertainment, Royal)
[http://images.geo.tv/updates_pics/3-27-2013_94052_l.jpg](http://www.geo.tv/GeoDetail.aspx?ID=94052)
ISLAMABAD: The commission formed to probe the missing persons case has submitted its report in the Supreme Court of Pakistan (SC) Wednesday, Geo News reported. According to the statistics in ...
Missing person issue is not new in Pakistan but it accelerated in Mush times and thousand were counted in this , Many bodies were found later in different places . I didn’t bother to read this report in full because the commission was headed by Javed Iqbal and I knew that he can not do any thing for us .
Justice Javed Iqbal’s parents murdered
**You have seen him at OBL Commission **
Re: Musharraf returns
Aid to Pakistan from USA:
Pakistan received around $10 billion dollars from USA throughout Musharaf period, half of that was for coalition support fund that Pakistan claims is not aid.
Anyhow, just in 2010 (in one year) USA gave Pakistan $5.0 billion … ($4.3 billion + $0.7 billion for flood relief).
Here is abstract from an article that is in ‘Congressional research service’, an American congress research site.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41856.pdf
A para From Article:
In** 2009**, Congress passed the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-73). The law authorizes the President to provide $1.5 billion in annual nonmilitary aid to Pakistan for FY2010 through FY2014 and requires annual certification for release of security-related aid; such conditionality is a contentious issue. Congress also established two new funds in 2009—the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund (PCF) within the Defense Department appropriations and the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund within the State-Foreign Operations Appropriations—to help build Pakistan’s counterinsurgency capabilities. When $1.5 billion in “coalition support fund” military reimbursements are added to economic and security aid totals, the United States provided a total of $4.3 billion for Pakistan for FY2010 alone, making it the second-highest recipient after Afghanistan. In addition to these ongoing programs, the United States pledged about $700 million in a response to extensive mid-2010 flooding in Pakistan
Re: Musharraf returns
Actually actual figure never comes out
Our main problem is the unofficial aid by CIA direct to …
An article about Chitral .
http://www.thefridaytimes.com/beta3/tft/article.php?issue=20130315&page=7
Re: Musharraf returns
Actually actual figure never comes out Our main problem is the unofficial aid by CIA direct to ........
Bhai Jaan, America is not Pakistan where dollars can disappear in Swiss accounts or invested in expensive properties abroad. If American government spends a dollar, they have to make that accountable to congress. The figure I quoted are all what American government gave to congress.
There is no such Gems in USA that: I also have right on corruption ... or ... degree is degree, be that degree real or fake ... or ... politicians passing their party and votes in will ... or ... politicians becoming hero by chanting America khuppa ... or ... people inheriting party as well as voters .. kiya kiya likhain as list of differences is unending.
Re: Musharraf returns
Bhai Jaan, America is not Pakistan where dollars can disappear in Swiss accounts or invested in expensive properties abroad. If American government spends a dollar, they have to make that accountable to congress. The figure I quoted are all what American government gave to congress.
Do you see all CIA spending too. Those are spread world over and I have not seen those in their law of information after thirty years even .
Re: Musharraf returns
Do you see all CIA spending too. Those are spread world over and I have not seen those in their law of information after thirty years even .
CIA Is also accountable for each dollar they spend, and their spending get approved by congress who know where money is going. And there is number of years (I do not remember how many years) when all USA activities, even top secret activities, get public.
Anyhow, CIA expenditure do not go to any country, rather it is used to fulfil or safeguard USA interest in country and abroad.
Re: Musharraf returns
Actually actual figure never comes out Our main problem is the unofficial aid by CIA direct to ............
That is true. There is (unconfirmed) rumor that the last government approached US with a request to at least tell us how much money they give to the military so as to make adjustments in the budget. The request was refused.
Re: Musharraf returns
CIA Is also accountable for each dollar they spend, and their spending get approved by congress who know where money is going. And there is number of years (I do not remember how many years) when all USA activities, even top secret activities, get public. Anyhow, CIA expenditure do not go to any country, rather it is used to fulfil or safeguard USA interest in country and abroad.
I can not believe . I am not expert but CIA is involved world over and this can destroy all of their work , Next to impossible , You know better than me so please do some work on it and inform us , this will be your great contribution .
Re: Musharraf returns
Though details may be kept secret for number of years, congress know and much of what CIA spends is also known to public. Here is good article that you can read. Article is old, and I believe
CIA budget must be more open now then it was then (as the article demands … what American constitution also requires. Anyhow, reading would give good insight about how CIA budget works, and that congress know everything.
CIA Budget: An Unnecessary Secret | Cato Institute
CIA Budget: An Unnecessary Secret
By David B. Kopel
July 28, 1997
Should the CIA’s budget be secret? Three former CIA directors say no — disclosure of the total amount of CIA spending would not harm national security, as long as individual budget items were kept secret.
Currently, the House of Representatives and the Senate are deciding on whether the sum, but not the details, of intelligence spending should be public.
In a sense, the outcome will not change anything, because the total budget is already known: as reported in the Washington Post, next year’s appropriation will be $30 billion, up from $29 billion this year.
But in a constitutional sense, the vote is very important. The constitution mandates: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”
That constitutional command is unequivocal: “No” means no.
During the Cold War, however, Congress kept the CIA budget secret. That unconstitutional concealment was not necessary. Canada, Britain and even Israel make their intelligence budgets public. During World War II, Congress and the president adhered to the Constitution, by making public the budget of the Office of Strategic Services (the predecessor to the CIA).
Today, with the Cold War won, there is no plausible risk from disclosing the overall intelligence budget. That was the unanimous conclusion of the Brown-Aspin commission, which was created by Congress to study intelligence budget issues. The conclusion is shared by former CIA directors Turner, Gates and Deutch.
When the disclosure issue came up on the floor of the Senate in June, Republican Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama successfully led the opposition. He argued that terrorist states could analyze budget trends to discover American intelligence capabilities.
But the Brown-Aspin commission, as well as the three retired CIA directors, specifically refuted that argument. They pointed out that no foreign state could learn anything useful by merely looking at the overall budget total or yearly budget trends.
More fundamentally, Senator Shelby’s argument proves too much. If Congress can violate one provision of the Constitution because of a remote threat that a foreign enemy might learn something, why not violate the rest of the Constitution? Why not censor any newspaper article from which a terrorist state might glean information? Why not ban all guns, since somebody might sell one to a hostile foreign government’s agents?
[HR][/HR]The Constitution tells us that in the long run, government in secret is far more dangerous than is the disclosure of information.
[HR][/HR]Senator Shelby also pointed to a 1974 Supreme Court case, United States v. Richardson, in which a taxpayer had brought suit demanding a line-item disclosure of the entire CIA budget.
In that case, the Court’s 5-4 majority wrote, “We need not and do not reach the merits of the constitutional attack on the [secrecy] statute.” Rather, the Court dismissed Richardson’s suit by holding that no taxpayer had legal standing to bring a suit to enforce the “Statement and Account” requirement of the Constitution.
In dicta in a footnote, the majority suggested that the Statement and Account clause could be interpreted “to permit some degree of secrecy of governmental operations.”
The Brown-Aspin commission does not disagree. The commission recommended that line items in the CIA budget remain secret. The only issue is a Statement and Account of the total budget.
The Statement and Account clause was not originally a controversial part of the Constitution. It was widely regarded as providing an important check on potential abuses. In the Virginia Ratifying Convention, George Mason stated that certain government information (such as diplomatic correspondence) might need to be secret, but “he did not conceive that the receipts and expenditures of the public money ought ever to be concealed. The people, he affirmed, had a right to know the expenditures of their money.”
In the Richardson case, the only justice who addressed the merits of the Statement and Account clause in detail was William O. Douglas, whose dissent was one of his typically energetic defenses of the first principles of limited government and individual liberty.
Justice Douglas wrote that “Congress of course has discretion; but to say that it has the power to read the clause out of the Constitution when it comes to one or two or three agencies is astounding.” If Congress can withhold the entirety (not just the details) of the CIA budget, can the Congress then “withhold ‘a regular Statement and Account’ respecting any agency it chooses?”
“The sovereign in this Nation is the people, not the bureaucracy,” Justice Douglas reminded us. “The statement of accounts of public expenditures goes to the heart of the problem of sovereignty. If taxpayers may not ask that rudimentary question, their sovereignty becomes an empty symbol and a secret bureaucracy is allowed to run our affairs.”
As Justice Douglas understood,** the Statement and Account clause is designed not for the pleasure of accountants but for the preservation of democracy: “The public cannot intelligently know how to exercise the franchise unless it has a basic knowledge concerning at least the generality of the accounts under every head of government.”**
In practice, intelligence spending has suffered from precisely the kinds of waste, fraud and abuse that are inevitable when total secrecy prevails. CIA spending has ballooned 80 percent in real dollars since 1980, even though the demise of the Soviet Union vastly reduces intelligence needs.
The CIA’s National Reconnaissance Office, which operates spy satellites, bought itself a luxurious $300 million complex with 14 extra acres not authorized by Congress. The office has $4 billion in unspent funds, of which it has lost $2 billion!
Disclosure of the total intelligence budget, Senator Shelby complained, would lead to political pressure to reduce the budget of course. That is what the Constitution requires: the public must know how much its servant the government is spending so that the public may choose to reduce or increase spending of its money.
If the possibility of political demands for reduced spending could justify violating the Statement and Accounts clause, then the defense budget, or any other agency budget, could also be secret.
But our Constitution provides many interlocking controls to protect us from the dangers of what the Framers called the Standing Army and President Eisenhower called the Military-Industrial Complex. One of the core protections is that the United States shall not have government in secret.
The policy questions raised by disclosure of intelligence or military spending have already been conclusively answered by the Constitution. The Constitution tells us that in the long run, government in secret is far more dangerous than is the disclosure of information. The congressional vote on adhering to the Statement and Account clause will be a good indication of whether this Congress means what it told the voters about its fidelity to the Constitution and its commitment to open government.
Re: Musharraf returns
Sixty years of US aid to Pakistan: Get the data | Global development | guardian.co.uk
The graph makes it easy see how US aid to Pakistan (recorded) peaks during military dictatorships.
Re: Musharraf returns
Check the graph carefully (pass the cursor over the graph to check the year). You will notice that Pakistan aid decreased when military took over (exception being Ayub era). Anyhow, aid increased due to Afghan problem and even here increase is substantially more during civilian rule than military rule … that is different matter that increased aid due to Afghan problem happened during Zia time after 1982 … Musharraf time from 2002 and is continuing today even after Musharraf is gone.
So, keeping same situation (Afghan problem) existing, we can see (from graph) that Pakistan got substantially more aid during civilian (choor) rule (2008 onward) per year than Musharraf military rule and part BB rule (1982-90) and Zia military rule (2002-2008).