Re: SC rules in favor of Sharif brothers (merged)
Bhai … who told you that? Don’t tell me that it was told to you by kaka Nawaz 
If it was right of PM to remove any general from any post for any reason or NO reason at all than it is right of a general to shoot PM dead on the head for any reason or NO reason at all.
Well, PM has no right to even remove a peon without any reasonable reason and if they do that, the peon has right to break the jaw of PM. No government servants (or you can say civil servants) are servant of PM but are servant of people and have their rights of job protection.
If PM could have sacked anyone with NO reason as you like to believe than with change of every Prime Minister many people everywhere in government job would lose their jobs.
NO prime minister have right to appoint anyone or sack anyone for whatever reason but only respective departments are authorized to do that and also when there are sufficient reasons to do that. Head of departments (where in most cases armed forces are excluded for obvious reasons that person in charge there could make trouble too) can be changed by Prime Minister using proper procedure, but even that can be done if there are sufficient reasons that can be defended in court, and person is given that reason so that the person concerned could defend themselves in court or any unbiased/apolitical hearing body available within the department (like for judges it is SJC).
Actually Prime Minister everywhere in the world depends on government servants to rule and implement their policies and depends on armed forces to guarantee their power (or authority) over others (next power after armed forces that guarantee Prime Minister rule over others are police).
Just imagine that Army chiefs are the most powerful people in the country as they have army under their command. They can bite back if anything happens to them, especially if any wrong is done to them from any quarters. As for Chief Justice, they have no power under their control and depend on others in power to implement their verdicts. Even then, Prime Minister cannot sack Chief Justice (or any judge) without reason.
[Well, to sack CJ a prime minister has to find reasons, send those reasons as reference to President, President send that reference to SJC, SJC does the investigation, send the investigation on those reference to President, President than can decide on the result of that investigation that CJ deserved to be sacked, and then only if CJ is found guilty than he would get sacked.
When an ordinary employee of government get legally sacked (anywhere in the world) NOT illegally sacked, same procedure is adopted in different way as what happens with CJ. Reasons are found. Employee gets suspended and investigation gets started. According to the result of investigation a decision is made and employee gets sacked.
As for army, no executive interfere there. Army does their own investigation and sacking, rather they do court martial as army posts are crucial posts. If executive try to interfere they can get thrown out anywhere in the world (except when executives are too strong … like Mao or Bhutto in his early days). But then, executives anywhere in the world are normally intelligent and do not venture where they do not have to, except an idiot like Nawaz and result is that he is out (normally he should have got killed, but he is fortunate to be alive).
Even lower employees have their rights. Just imagine that prime minister can come and go, they might be in power for few days to 5 years. If Prime minister could sack someone than every Prime Minister would come with their baggage of political workers and would change whole bureaucracy, sacking all government employees for reason or NO reason.
[/COLOR]
What President wrote is perfectly fine. When there is an idiot as Prime minister any intelligent army chief would make a provision that if this idiot acts foolishly, he should be encountered. There should be provisions for such eventuality in all armed forces anywhere in the world. I believe that all armed forces must be having such provisions that they could act if loyalty of executives become doubtful. But as you can read that these provisions were made to be implemented if that idiot (Nawaz) would do something foolish, what wrong with that? This should be commendable.
[What I know is that USA and UK forces have such provisions and even though they might not take over the country, but they could easily kill unwanted elements in executives or corridor of power. No court or justice system could do anything to them nor Justice System ever dare to do anything to them. What I know, Kennedy and Diana was victim of such provisions and Edward VIII (of UK) loosing his Kingship was also victim of such provisions. All get done in the name of National Security or whatever].
What Musharraf wrote is good sign of intelligence and shows that our generals are not idiots (like most Pakistani lawyers, judges, politicians and many others are) but have thinking minds. It make me confident that Pakistan could not get destroyed by some idiot that ever come to power through democracy. These types of provisions must be there in all armies and should be there in the forces of every country.
Defence lawyers … :rotato: … well, Pakistani lawyers and judges are mostly corrupt jokers :D. They survive in Pakistan because in Pakistan jokers have values for many 
.
After reading arguments of Pakistani lawyers and comments of Pakistani corrupt judges, one can expect anything from them. What can one expect from judges that get their sons admitted in colleges when they do not deserve admission on merit. Or get job using their influences? Judges that are crooks and corrupts … those that are more into looting and plundering themselves and claim that they would hold justice … Man they are just jokers … so don’t give examples of jokers.
In Pakistan … judge is the one with Lathie and if I was in Power, I would use that lathie to shoot these corrupt judges rather let them have their corruptions prevails.
If I was one of the lawyer in court, I would have asked the judge that if Prime Minister and President could not sack you even when you are guilty of corruption and nepotism, how can you expect that Prime minister sack Army chief? When you did all to get yourself reinstated and did not even wanted enquiry on you (because you were guilty of all what was there in reference) … Your 2 pence black coat corrupt lawyers who do all to fiddle with law came out on road for you … how can you or corrupt judges here on the bench even think or expect that army should have kept quite and not acted when a retarded Prime Minister decide to sack him without any enquiry or reasons?