SC rules in favor of Sharif brothers (merged)

[Sa1eem]

Re: SC rules in favor of Sharif brothers (merged)

@Shamraz_Khan

Bhai its in little green book. Its called The Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Try reading it some time.

@Shamraz_Khan

Under parliamentary act of 1997 power to appoint the service chiefs was given to the prime minister. Mushrraf was appointed by NS, and he had the right to remove him under the constitution.

Again you are wrong … true PM has right to appoint army chief but he cannot appoint army chief who he likes … it has to be from army seniors [Nawaz could not have made Shahbaz army chief just because as prime minister he had right to appoint army chief] … in same way he can sack army chief again not without reason but with reasons.

@Shamraz_Khan

It happens all the time. When govt change hand (at least in western countries) the political appointees have to go, too. Very common and very normal thing in democracies all over the world.

Seems you are twisting words or not thinking when writing. Political appointments and government jobs are two different things. If you do not know this much, its waste of time to even write anything and expect that you would understand. Political appointments come and go with political party in power but government jobs does not come and go with political party getting into power. Army chief is not a political person that they come and go with political party or their job come and go with change of political party in power. If you will read my post, I did not wrote anywhere about political appointment but I wrote about government jobs.

@Shamraz_Khan

Sorry, but I think you understand how govt works. The departments and agencies that take political direction from the PM, including the cabinet-level departments (which includes army and police), constitute the executive branch of the government.

@Shamraz_Khan

The executive branch under the constitution must enforce laws passed by the parliament, and it must implement judicial orders. As with the legislature, the judiciary cannot enforce its decisions without the help of the executive (e.g. police force, prison service or the army).

did I wrote anything different in my post? Only thing that I wrote is that when one or other institution does not follow the rule, they lose all their rights. For instnce, a corrupt Prime Minister, a corrupt legislative assembly, a corrupt judiciary … cannot expect that others should obey them.

When Chief Justice is himself corrupt and guilty of nepotism, all his verdicts are worthless and if others kick him than CJ deserves that. Institutions direct other institutions on legal as well as moral ground. If Prime Minister is corrupt (or make unjust orders) than that prime minister lose that right to direct anyone. In such situation, it is right of army (even police) to kick that prime minister out of the seat because that prime minister loose that moral right to direct others.

[Even when Father lose his moral standing in front of children, children start disobeying father. Here we have two equal citizen, none is above other in any respect and all are serving the country, other than position of a person, where one biggest factor is acceptance and respect of position … that comes with moral standing].

@Shamraz_Khan

Also, army is an institution of the govt and SC and Parliament are branches of the govt. Tomorrow the parliament can do away with the army as institution, but it cannot get rid of the SC or vice versa.

Bhai … aap lagtaa hay kuch zaidah hee tribal area jaanay lagay hou … kuch kaam piya karo aur haqeeqat may raha karo … Reason is that parliament if they are strong, they can do away with any institution they want, be that institution judiciary or army. But if they are not strong, they can do away with no institutions. In practical life, it is possible that army might get rid of Parliament and SC than parliament or SC doing anything to the armed forces

@Shamraz_Khan

The Chief Justice is head of a branch of a govt and the army chief is a head of branch of governmental institution. There is a big different between the two. To give you a comparative example, army chief’s position on terms of hierarchy of the govt jobs is less than junior sport minister and CJ powers equals to that of a president.

Again … aap bahki bahki baat kar rahay hou … what you want to say… lagtaa hay aap ko Supreme Court Bukhaar chahaar giya hay …

Chief Justice is not head of ‘a branch of government’ but is head of ‘a branch of government institution’. As for CJ powers equal to President … again … aap kuch pee ker baat kar rahay hou … fact is that CJ is appointee of government (President or Prime Minister appoints CJ … depending on what sort of government country has) and President is appointing authority and head of government. Actually, Law minister is in charge of judiciary and thus CJ comes under law minister.

You should remember that CJ is paid employee of government and is a career in government job. There is especial educational need (being a lawyer) to be in this job. Ministers, Prime Ministers, Presidents (or even junior ministers) are not government jobs but public representative jobs and thus they are NOT considered as employee of government and thus there is no especial educational need for such jobs.

Ministers, Prime Ministers, Presidents, (junior ministers) … can come and go as political party in power changes, but Chief Justice (army chief, or any person in government jobs) stay in job regardless of who is in power, as their job is government career job (employment).

As for hierarchy of government jobs, junior sport ministers (or any ministers) cannot be part of such hierarchy, as they are not doing government job but are holding political posts (representative jobs) and it is stupid to compare people in government jobs with people in representative (political) posts. Sport minister would come and go as political party changes, but army chief or people in government jobs do not come and go.

@Shamraz_Khan

No, it only happens in banana republics, like ours, where corrupt generals think they’re above the law or accountability of any kind.

Again you are wrong … actually it happens in banana republic where Prime Minister wants to control all government institutions so that they can do corruption and whatever they like without worry, and to do that they do everything they can using legal or illegal means. If that would happen anywhere, then Prime Minister or anyone would get same fate what they get in Pakistan.

@Shamraz_Khan

I think Afghanistan is having bumper hashish corp again this year.

Yahi tou may bhie sonch raha tha kay hamary ‘Shamraz Khan saheb’ ayesee ayesee batayin jo likh rahay hain … there must be some reason Thanks to let me know why your posts have smells of Afghani hashish

@Shamraz_Khan

Well, I hope you don’t end up on the wrong side of law in Pakistan where you just might need one of those corrupt people.

Dont worry, Pakistan is a unique country where one can even buy the judge anytime. If I get into trouble, I will make sure that I have BMW key handy to handover

[Sa1eem]

Re: SC rules in favor of Sharif brothers (merged)

@Haris Zuberi

Thanks Sa1eem! :k:

Haris thanks .. you are welcome

[Zakk]

Re: SC rules in favor of Sharif brothers (merged)

I think the irony of the situation for Mushy ( i shall not get involved in politics/i pledge to give up my uniform etc) supporters criticising Nawaz, for breaking his word, is being lost..:D

[Captain1]

Re: SC rules in favor of Sharif brothers (merged)

@Sa1eem

[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].

kia baat hay aap ki “know” ki. If they were killed by army under “such provisions” why should there be “investigations” spending millions of dollars/pounds? If army was granted such rights would army stand up to its actions and give statement that they were killed by army? Saleem mian, please don’t just make BS claims.

[Shamraz_Khan]

Re: SC rules in favor of Sharif brothers (merged)

Again you are wrong ... true PM has right to appoint army chief but he cannot appoint army chief who he likes ... it has to be from army seniors [Nawaz could not have made Shahbaz army chief just because as prime minister he had right to appoint army chief] ... in same way he can sack army chief again not without reason but with reasons.

PM can appoint any serving General (not a civilian) as an army chief. Mushrraf was I think number 5 in terms of seniority when he was appointed as an army chief. He was picked b/c NS feared Punjabi generals and he thought Mushrraf being from a smaller ethnic group will not challenged his authority. Thats is a known fact.

[quote]
Seems you are twisting words or not thinking when writing. Political appointments and government jobs are two different things.
[/quote]

No, I think you're confused. Let me give you an example. The post man who delivers you mail is a govt employee, but his boss (post master gen) who hired him might be a political appointee. When the govt changes hand, political appointee has to go, but the lower level guy can stay provided his new boss is ok with it.

[quote]
Political appointments come and go with political party in power but government jobs does not come and go with political party getting into power. Army chief is not a political person that they come and go with political party or their job come and go with change of political party in power.
[/quote]

Oh, yes they do my friend. I can give you countless examples of this here in the US. When new president takes over he always appoints new army chief of staff.

[quote]
For instnce, a corrupt Prime Minister, a corrupt legislative assembly, a corrupt judiciary ... cannot expect that others should obey them.
[/quote]

You forgot to add corrupt generals who are eating away half of our GDP & have never delivered anything worthwhile, and not to mention losing half of the country.

[quote]
When Chief Justice is himself corrupt and guilty of nepotism, all his verdicts are worthless and if others kick him than CJ deserves that.
[/quote]

Well, he is still the CJ and what he say goes. BTW, Nepotism you're accusing him off...that happened before he was even appointed as a CJP, and that too, by none other than your pious and sinless general president Mushrraf.

[quote]
Reason is that parliament if they are strong, they can do away with any institution they want, be that institution judiciary or army. But if they are not strong, they can do away with no institutions. In practical life, it is possible that army might get rid of Parliament and SC than parliament or SC doing anything to the armed forces
[/quote]

Sorry, but w/o judiciary the govt will be incomplete. BTW, why not just make Mushrraf as parliament, president, and the CJ, after I'm sure you will agree that we don't need these corrupt institution, or do we?

[quote]
Chief Justice is not head of a branch of government but is head of a branch of government institution. As for CJ powers equal to president again ... aap kuch pee ker baat kar rahay hou ... fact is that CJ is appointee of government (President or Prime Minister appoints CJ ... depending on what sort of government country has) and President is appointing authority and head of government. Actually, Law minister is in charge of judiciary and thus CJ comes under law minister.
[/quote]

Thanks for the information. I wasted all these yeas in law school. What was I thinking? :(

[quote]
You should remember that CJ is paid employee of government and is a career in government job. There is especial educational need (being a lawyer) to be in this job. Ministers, Prime Ministers, Presidents are not government jobs but public representative jobs and thus they are NOT considered as employee of government and thus there is no especial educational need for such jobs.
[/quote]

Last time I checked to contest an election BA was the minimum requirement, and that is why most of Mushrraf lotas ended up buying degrees from online diploma mills. BTW, PM, the President, MPA, MNA and Senators all of them are govt employees. You may want to double check on that.

[quote]
Ministers, Prime Ministers, Presidents ... can come and go as political party in power changes, but Chief Justice stay in job as career regardless of who is in power.
[/quote]

Its b/c SC function very differently from other branches of the govt.

[quote]
Dont worry, Pakistan is a unique country where one can even buy the judge anytime. If I get into trouble, I will make sure that I have BMW key handy to handover
[/QUOTE]

Good to see that you have sound moral principles. Instead of facing the challenged and proving your innocence, you're willing to buy out a judge. Thats the reason why Pakistan is where it is today....

[Sa1eem]

Re: SC rules in favor of Sharif brothers (merged)

@Captain1

kia baat hay aap ki “know” ki. If they were killed by army under “such provisions” why should there be “investigations” spending millions of dollars/pounds? If army was granted such rights would army stand up to its actions and give statement that they were killed by army? Saleem mian, please don’t just make BS claims.

kiya krayin … have to have a good laugh on what you wrote … sadqay jayoon aap kee innocence per

Did I write anywhere Army? Seems you did not notice that I did not used army but decided to use forces. Forces mean all government authorities that are linked with military, including intelligence agencies.

Fortunately these days, information is widely available on every topic. Why don’t you do some search and try to find out that who are suspected behind the killings of Kennedy and Diana? Obviously no one would come in public to write that … who they were as these things are not done in obvious way. Just like our corrupt leaders that they do not do corruption so that things become obvious. They would order 10 million dollar goods showing price tag of 100 million dollars, and then make the company they would order to transfer that extra 90 billion dollars in their account (so no trace). Same way things get done but still, one way or another things do comes out.

As for King Edward VIII … again try to find out why he had to abdicate the throne?

[Captain1]

Re: SC rules in favor of Sharif brothers (merged)

@Sa1eem

kiya krayin … have to have a good laugh on what you wrote … sadqay jayoon aap kee innocence per

Did I write anywhere Army? Seems you did not notice that I did not used army but decided to use forces. Forces mean all government authorities that are linked with military, including intelligence agencies.

You are right, you didn’t say “armed forces” but again if “forces” have “provisions” to kill then they don’t have to sit quite and spend millions of dollars on “investigations”, they can simply speak up and say that these people were against the nation and we have “provision” in law to kill such people. Many terrorist organisations make claims when they carry out such actions of killings but a “legal action” carried out by “forces” cannot be “claimed”???

Well, if you want to believe in conspiracy theories there are tons of them.

[shriek11]

Re: SC rules in favor of Sharif brothers (merged)

@Flame_of_Life

BBC NEWS | South Asia | Exiled Pakistani PM 'to go home'

Interesting development. Where does this leave the Mush-BB deal? More importantly, how does Musharraf respond? He’s already declared that neither BB nor NS will be allowed to come back before elections.

Maybe america is “publically promoting” a Mush-BB deal but they might as well made a deal with sharif privately? I mean this gunja ran to washington so fast to get a photo op with clinton after kargil that americans knew he was a joker. He might have been a good chap in the beginning, but his second tenure proved that he is as bad, if not worse, than benazir. I wonder why no one ponders about the fact that where did the money go for the infamous **QARZ UTARO MULK SANWARO [ABBA JEE SANWARO?? :hehe: ] ** scheme? I know many ethnic chauvinists get their panties in a bunch about musharraf now a days..

How do you know anything for certain these dayz anyway??? :5

[shriek11]

Re: SC rules in favor of Sharif brothers (merged)

[quote]
Oh, yes they do my friend. I can give you countless examples of this here in the US. When new president takes over he always appoints new army chief of staff.
[/quote]

I don't think so. It is not that easy as it may seem. True, the President can fire a general [McCarthy example?] but then a new general has to go through the appointment process in the Senate. Personally, I believe it is time we get a new constitution in Pakistan which has a presidential system like America. The parliamentary system is prone to unstability "loss of confidence" so new snap elections can be ordered wasting tax payer money].

PS Does anyone has any in-depth information about the last two constitution i.e. the 1956 constitution and the presidential sixties? ayub khan constitution. Maybe we need to learn a thing or two from them. I can't understand why was the 1956 constitution invalid, when it was made by a constituent assembly.

[Sa1eem]

Re: SC rules in favor of Sharif brothers (merged)

@Shamraz_Khan

PM can appoint any serving General (not a civilian) as an army chief. Mushrraf was I think number 5 in terms of seniority when he was appointed as an army chief. He was picked b/c NS feared Punjabi generals and he thought Mushrraf being from a smaller ethnic group will not challenged his authority. Thats is a known fact.

Yes, PM at the time of appointment can appoint any Lt Gen (not any General but any Lt. General) as army chief. Anyhow, please read my post again. I did not write ‘senior most’ but I wrote ‘from army seniors’.

@Shamraz_Khan

No, I think you’re confused. Let me give you an example. The post man who delivers you mail is a govt employee, but his boss (post master gen) who hired him might be a political appointee. When the govt changes hand, political appointee has to go, but the lower level guy can stay provided his new boss is ok with it.

No, I am not confused. No post in government can be filled by appointing authority but can be filled after following certain rules and regulations (though you are right that in some countries, seniors overlook this requirement … though that is illegal). As for post master general, that is not politically appointed post but it is government jobs and person get to that post after working many years of working in post office and getting promotion to that post. No one can sack ‘post master general’ like any government employee unless there is valid reason.

@Shamraz_Khan

Oh, yes they do my friend. I can give you countless examples of this here in the US. When new president takes over he always appoints new army chief of staff.

Is it? Seems that American system is as corrupt as Pakistani System, issi liya seems many Pakistanis that go to USA still stay supporter of corrupts

@Shamraz_Khan

You forgot to add corrupt generals who are eating away half of our GDP & have never delivered anything worthwhile, and not to mention losing half of the country.

Half of Pakistan GDP is 73 billion dollars (Total GDP is around 146 billion dollars). Pakistan defence budget is around 4 billion dollars. Around a million people get paid from those 4 billion dollars plus all equipments of forces come from that too. India defence budget is over 22 billion dollars. How sad that Pakistan spend 18 percent of what India spends on defence and expect that they would defend the country on that money.

As for what military did for country, well they increased Pakistan GDP from around 60 billion dollars in 1999 to today 146 billion dollars. I think that this is a big achievement. Stock market during last 8 years has increased 10 times, and that is big achievement … well, I won’t go into all what have got achieved, as that would become boring to even read for some Only thing I can say is that the biggest achievement of military is to save Pakistan from blood sucker parasites like BB and NS.

@Shamraz_Khan

Well, he is still the CJ and what he say goes. BTW, Nepotism you’re accusing him off…that happened before he was even appointed as a CJP, and that too, by none other than your pious and sinless general president Mushrraf.

I agree that his nepotism happened long time ago. I could not deny the fact. It is also true that this corrupt CJ of Pakistan was appointed by Musharraf and I could not deny that fact too. But than I never said that Musharraf never made mistakes or that Musharraf is an angel, did I?

I think that Musharraf was trying to reduce that deprivation feeling of Balochistan and that resulted first time in Pakistan history to have a Baloch Chief Jusstice and Baloch Prime Minister and many other Baloch at crucial posts. But again, that does not mean that all what happened during Musharraf rule was 100 percent perfect. Still again I have to accept that President’s appointee (CJ) is not a very bad person (though still bad). He is better than mega corrupts like NS, BB. Probably he is less corrupt than many others we had as judges.

@Shamraz_Khan

Sorry, but w/o judiciary the govt will be incomplete. BTW, why not just make Mushrraf as parliament, president, and the CJ, after I’m sure you will agree that we don’t need these corrupt institution, or do we?

No, judiciary is a need of government as many other institutions working for government. If Pakistan was a country of few millions than that was possible, but responsibility on government is of 160 million people, and thus all institutions are needed. I never said that Pakistan does not need judiciary as institution neither all work can be done by one person. I only said that if government wants to, they can get rid of judiciary too.

It is like, a person sleeps on bed. But that does not mean that the person cannot sleep without bed. Certainly one can sleep even if that person does not have bed. Still it is better to sleep on bed. Same way a country can survive without judiciary, but that does not mean that a country should survive without judiciary.

@Shamraz_Khan

Thanks for the information. I wasted all these yeas in law school. What was I thinking?

Issi liya aap nay lika kay … post master general is political post that changes whenever new political party comes to power. … did you spend so many years in Pakistani law school? Well I am sorry … I know that post master general is not political post in Pakistan and UK, maybe it is in corrupt system of USA, who knows? Though, I am doubtful about that too .

@Shamraz_Khan

Last time I checked to contest an election BA was the minimum requirement, and that is why most of Mushrraf lotas ended up buying degrees from online diploma mills. BTW, PM, the President, MPA, MNA and Senators all of them are govt employees. You may want to double check on that.

You know what? When I wrote my last post I was thinking that you might get confuse and might write what you wrote … that is why I made sure to write [especial education need (being a lawyer)] and not just [educational need] hoping that you would understand. Can you please tell me if a degree is ‘special educational need for being a member of parliament (anywhere in the world)’ or it is introduced in (illiterate, tribal and feudal) Pakistan as a proof that person that would reach parliament is able to read, write and understand at reasonable level (so that he/she can really contribute)?

@Shamraz_Khan

Its b/c SC function very differently from other branches of the govt.

You mean other branches of government works in same way and it is only SC that works differently? Please specify?

@Shamraz_Khan

Good to see that you have sound moral principles. Instead of facing the challenged and proving your innocence, you’re willing to buy out a judge. Thats the reason why Pakistan is where it is today…

KIya kiya jayea? If CJ of a country is corrupt and wants BMW to give verdicts regardless of it being right or wrong, what an ordinary citizen like me could do? I am poor Pakistani with no connections and that is why I feel worried when finds that Pakistan has corrupt CJ. To save my butt, have to pay until the day a clean CJ, a clean Prime Minister and a cleaner system comes to Pakistan. Yahaan morality ka kiya sawaal hay? Yea survival ka sawaal hay

[And mind you, none of my post was person specific but system specific. I could not understand why and how you and many here read system specific post and turn that into person (Musharraf) specific? :halo: ]

[Sa1eem]

Re: SC rules in favor of Sharif brothers (merged)

You are right, you didn't say "armed forces" but again if "forces" have "provisions" to kill then they don't have to sit quite and spend millions of dollars on "investigations", they can simply speak up and say that these people were against the nation and we have "provision" in law to kill such people. Many terrorist organisations make claims when they carry out such actions of killings but a "legal action" carried out by "forces" cannot be "claimed"????

Well, if you want to believe in conspiracy theories there are tons of them.

Did I write anywhere that what they did is according to Law? Be logical :).

Laws are for individuals (even if that individual is sitting Prime Minister) but not for governments or forces that work on defence, security and intelligence of a country or on implementation of laws (most of there actions that are beyond laws are kept secret). Some security actions by intelligence agencies or actions of defence personals may be very devastating for people (ordinary citizens and individuals) but none ever know and government keeps that covered forever. Many times, even sitting Prime Minister or President does not know what is happening behind the door (in the name of security and defence).

Intelligent officers all over the world keep breaking the laws of the country for suppose to be security reasons, and they get away with it because they are part of government security agencies (people in military does the same).

[Flame_of_Life]

Re: SC rules in favor of Sharif brothers (merged)

I don't think so. It is not that easy as it may seem. True, the President can fire a general [McCarthy example?] but then a new general has to go through the appointment process in the Senate. Personally, I believe it is time we get a new constitution in Pakistan which has a presidential system like America. The parliamentary system is prone to unstability "loss of confidence" so new snap elections can be ordered wasting tax payer money].

PS Does anyone has any in-depth information about the last two constitution i.e. the 1956 constitution and the presidential sixties? ayub khan constitution. Maybe we need to learn a thing or two from them. I can't understand why was the 1956 constitution invalid, when it was made by a constituent assembly.

I did some searching on Presidential vs Parliamentary form of govt. sometime back. Turns out, since world war II, Presidential form of govt. has proven to be more unstable in comparison with parliamentary form of govt. Personally I think both systems r fine. It's the people running any system that matter. Even if we have a Presidential form of govt., it could end up creating major instability if you have a President from PML-N and a senate majority for PPP. There will be a deadlock.

1956 constitution had some elementary flaws. It proposed a unicameral legislature for a parliamentary form of govt., which has never been done anywhere else in the world.

1960's constitution was scrapped because the election process was crooked and because it was based on principle of parity between east and west wing when east had a larger population.

[Captain1]

Re: SC rules in favor of Sharif brothers (merged)

Did I write anywhere that what they did is according to Law? Be logical :).

Laws are for individuals (even if that individual is sitting Prime Minister) but not for governments or forces that work on defence, security and intelligence of a country or on implementation of laws (most of there actions that are beyond laws are kept secret). Some security actions by intelligence agencies or actions of defence personals may be very devastating for people (ordinary citizens and individuals) but none ever know and government keeps that covered forever. Many times, even sitting Prime Minister or President does not know what is happening behind the door (in the name of security and defence).

Intelligent officers all over the world keep breaking the laws of the country for suppose to be security reasons, and they get away with it because they are part of government security agencies (people in military does the same).

okay Einstein, what does this mean:

"What I know is that USA and UK forces have such *provisions *"

[Iconoclast]

Re: SC rules in favor of Sharif brothers (merged)

Did I write anywhere that what they did is according to Law? Be logical :).

Laws are for individuals (even if that individual is sitting Prime Minister) but not for governments or forces that work on defence, security and intelligence of a country or on implementation of laws (most of there actions that are beyond laws are kept secret). Some security actions by intelligence agencies or actions of defence personals may be very devastating for people (ordinary citizens and individuals) but none ever know and government keeps that covered forever. Many times, even sitting Prime Minister or President does not know what is happening behind the door (in the name of security and defence).

Intelligent officers all over the world keep breaking the laws of the country for suppose to be security reasons, and they get away with it because they are part of government security agencies (people in military does the same).

You have an awesome sense of humour. By the way when are you replacing Wasi Zafar.

And you must be very happy when Naseerullah Babar was doing his security work in Karachi.

[meherealone]

Re: SC rules in favor of Sharif brothers (merged)

Atleast not fully yet...he's a citizen fine, he's a criminal too and he got into an agreement with the govt and an allied foreign govt...settle that and then we have full justice...but that wont happen...heck the CJ restoration full judgment is nowhere to be found still... Not everything is written in the books of law written centuries ago, *ijtehad *as religious legal lingo puts it...is lacking...of course the SC's motives are clear...

ok go and prove it in court
because court did not see sympathies as you have for musharaf

[shriek11]

Re: SC rules in favor of Sharif brothers (merged)

^^ We are sure of where your "sympathies" lie..

[Shamraz_Khan]

Re: SC rules in favor of Sharif brothers (merged)

@Sa1eem

Yes, PM at the time of appointment can appoint any Lt Gen (not any General but any Lt. General) as army chief. Anyhow, please read my post again. I did not write ‘senior most’ but I wrote ‘from army seniors’.

I was not aware of Lt General requirement. I thought PM could appoint anyone from any three branches of military based on seniority (not always followed) list as an army chief. Air Marshal (retd) Asghar Khan comes my to mind. Wasn’t he army chief sometime back?

No, I am not confused. No post in government can be filled by appointing authority but can be filled after following certain rules and regulations (though you are right that in some countries, seniors overlook this requirement … though that is illegal).

No, its not illegal. When junior level officer is appointed as an army chief those above him normally resigned. When Mushrraf was appointed as army chief by NS those above him resigned.

As for post master general, that is not politically appointed post but it is government jobs and person get to that post after working many years of working in post office and getting promotion to that post. No one can sack ‘post master general’ like any government employee unless there is valid reason.

I was just giving you an example. I don’t even know if a post master gen is political appointee or not.

Half of Pakistan GDP is 73 billion dollars (Total GDP is around 146 billion dollars). Pakistan defence budget is around 4 billion dollars. Around a million people get paid from those 4 billion dollars plus all equipments of forces come from that too. India defence budget is over 22 billion dollars. How sad that Pakistan spend 18 percent of what India spends on defence and expect that they would defend the country on that money.

Read Military Inc. by Ayesha Siddiqa. It will open your eyes. PDF version might be available online.

As for what military did for country, well they increased Pakistan GDP from around 60 billion dollars in 1999 to today 146 billion dollars. I think that this is a big achievement. Stock market during last 8 years has increased 10 times, and that is big achievement … well, I won’t go into all what have got achieved, as that would become boring to even read for some Only thing I can say is that the biggest achievement of military is to save Pakistan from blood sucker parasites like BB and NS.

Care to explain how military did all that? Are generals mining gold in GHQ?

Still again I have to accept that President’s appointee (CJ) is not a very bad person (though still bad). He is better than mega corrupts like NS, BB. Probably he is less corrupt than many others we had as judges.

Everyone who is in position of power in Pakistan is corrupt, including Mushrraf and his lota league and top brass of military.

I never said that Pakistan does not need judiciary as institution neither all work can be done by one person. I only said that if government wants to, they can get rid of judiciary too.

Any civilized society that function based on constitutional rule of law, must have a judicial system. The govt system will not work w/o judiciary.

You know what? When I wrote my last post I was thinking that you might get confuse and might write what you wrote … that is why I made sure to write [especial education need (being a lawyer)] and not just [educational need] hoping that you would understand. Can you please tell me if a degree is ‘special educational need for being a member of parliament (anywhere in the world)’ or it is introduced in (illiterate, tribal and feudal) Pakistan as a proof that person that would reach parliament is able to read, write and understand at reasonable level (so that he/she can really contribute)?

The educational requirements to be a member of parliament were introduced by Mushrraf in 2000. Before that there were no educational requirements as for as I know. Also, to be a judge, you must understand laws, the law that are written by MPs who did not needed any degree to write laws.

KIya kiya jayea? If CJ of a country is corrupt and wants BMW to give verdicts regardless of it being right or wrong, what an ordinary citizen like me could do? I am poor Pakistani with no connections and that is why I feel worried when finds that Pakistan has corrupt CJ. To save my butt, have to pay until the day a clean CJ, a clean Prime Minister and a cleaner system comes to Pakistan. Yahaan morality ka kiya sawaal hay? Yea survival ka sawaal hay

I know all the poor Pakistanis (like you) drive BMWs. Kaash kay main be poor hota…meray paas be BMW hoti. I have Toyota… BTW, chances of your encounter with CJ are zero unless ISI kidnaps your relatives than you might need his help in locating them.

[Shamraz_Khan]

Re: SC rules in favor of Sharif brothers (merged)

I don't think so. It is not that easy as it may seem. True, the President can fire a general [McCarthy example?] but then a new general has to go through the appointment process in the Senate. Personally, I believe it is time we get a new constitution in Pakistan which has a presidential system like America. The parliamentary system is prone to unstability "loss of confidence" so new snap elections can be ordered wasting tax payer money].

In the US all presidential appointees must be approved by the US Senate. All these people including the JCOAS serve at the pleasure of a president. Normally, when the new president takes over all old political appointees have to go, including the army chief. BTW, sometime new presidents do keep previous admin. appointees such as directors of FBI/CIA etc.

[humanist]

Re: SC rules in favor of Sharif brothers (merged)

but in 2002 were you at the governor house, PMLNHQ, Raiwind, Jeddah or a voting booth?

he's notorious rather than popular, his very political existence was nourished on the lap of a military dictator who was far more dictatorial than the present democratic military ruler. What is his politics all about? personal agendas, lies and deception. Like other parties.

And what can we say of our masses and their favorites they change faster and more irrationally than the change in their list of favorite actors/stars...

Very agreed!

I was in touch with Governor House through some close friends.

He is popular in Punjab, infact the most popular leader in Punjab and that's a fact.

I am not defending him, but he is as evil as BB and Altaf. No more no less. Yet there is no doubt all three of them have their vote banks.

People vote ethnically in Pakistan, and that 's also a fact. It did not change for Karachi, did not change for Sindh, and will not change for Punjab.

BB has a very little vote bank in Punjab. Conduct a fair election in Punjab and you will see two tinds coming back to power again from Punjab.

[shriek11]

Re: SC rules in favor of Sharif brothers (merged)

@Shamraz_Khan

In the US all presidential appointees must be approved by the US Senate. All these people including the JCOAS serve at the pleasure of a president. Normally, when the new president takes over all old political appointees have to go, including the army chief. BTW, sometime new presidents do keep previous admin. appointees such as directors of FBI/CIA etc.

But many times these appointees are not validated unless through back door measures. So, your comparison to hair transplant tindi doesn’t really hold :fifa: