As far as Judiciary is concerned they were never independent in Pakistan either. So what's the fight now.
.
Yes they were, last year they proved that, when they were taking up and sticking it up to the illegal president. Remember the courts taking notice of kidnapped Pakistani sold by Musharraf, illegal property purchases by high ranking officials, and the legitimacy of Musharrafs illegal presidential election? Sadly, we all know what happened after that. This is why it will take some time to phase out the after effects of this bloody dictatorship, because of which the NRO came into being.
I think these are the fruits of democracy. People have elected crooks again.
I think Pakistan would have been far better if there were no elections in 2002 and people like IK and others would have joined Musharraf and he did not have to rely on the other crookeds like PML Q and MQM. But then Musharraf proved worst during 2007 and 2008 and destroyed whatever good he had done pre 2002.
I agree, but that 2007-2008 was more like 2002 onwards. It was all downhill when he got the MQM/PML[Q] crooks for him, one bad decision after the other.
Yes they were, last year they proved that, when they were taking up and sticking it up to the illegal president. Remember the courts taking notice of kidnapped Pakistani sold by Musharraf, illegal property purchases by high ranking officials, and the legitimacy of Musharrafs illegal presidential election? Sadly, we all know what happened after that. This is why it will take some time to phase out the after effects of this bloody dictatorship, because of which the NRO came into being.
they were not very indpenedent when they signed on teh first PCO. the independent ones were those who refused to sign it the first time around.
^ But what they did was pretty independent meri jaan. Even though I respect the CJ who refused to take oath under Musharraf (and was unjustly house arrested soon after), you are forgetting that he did take over after Sajjad Ali Shah resigned, and we all know what led to Sajjads ouster.
CJ Iftikhar was the first time this country had a CJ who started acting like he had no loyalty to the jackshah who appointed him. If not so, please explain why he was ultimately removed in an emergency, after being reinstated following a bogus charge that was dismissed by the same handpicked people. His personality again, is something that Zardari fears and this is why hes not being reinstated.
^ But what they did was pretty independent meri jaan. Even though I respect the CJ who refused to take oath under Musharraf (and was unjustly house arrested soon after), you are forgetting that he did take over after Sajjad Ali Shah resigned, and we all know what led to Sajjads ouster.
CJ Iftikhar was the first time this country had a CJ who started acting like he had no loyalty to the jackshah who appointed him. If not so, please explain why he was ultimately removed in an emergency, after being reinstated following a bogus charge that was dismissed by the same handpicked people. His personality again, is something that Zardari fears and this is why hes not being reinstated.
but what they did when they took oath under musharraf was not very independent, not even close to it. their being in office depended ona nd was based on taking oath on PCO of a dictator yeah?
so from an independence perspective I give them 50% and I am being generous here.
but what they did when they took oath under musharraf was not very independent, not even close to it. their being in office depended ona nd was based on taking oath on PCO of a dictator yeah?
You are forgetting that a large proportion of people supported Musharraf back then, including me. Maybe some people were wiser and more experienced with dictatorships, so they chose not to take oath under Musharraf, but its safe to say that he, despite being a dictator, was a golden ray of hope back when NS was ousted. Ofcourse what happened after is a sad story.
[/quote]
You are forgetting that a large proportion of people supported Musharraf back then, including me. Maybe some people were wiser and more experienced with dictatorships, so they chose not to take oath under Musharraf, but its safe to say that he, despite being a dictator, was a golden ray of hope back when NS was ousted. Ofcourse what happened after is a sad story.
[/QUOTE]
so was he any more legal then because he was a ray of hope?
just because some judges say ray of hope that they allowed him to form a govt?
good judges eh, who would thus go against constitution.
in that case very independent, not bound by anything..even constitution.
so was he any more legal then because he was a ray of hope?
[/quote]
Yes.
[quote]
just because some judges say ray of hope that they allowed him to form a govt?
[/quote]
Not sure what you mean by that, elaborate
[quote]
good judges eh, who would thus go against constitution.
[/quote]
Doctrine of necessity. Lesson learnt, never let a dictator in, even if it seems like the right thing to do, Zia, Musharraf being prime examples.
[quote]
in that case very independent, not bound by anything..even constitution.
[/quote]
Nope, they were doing everything in their right in 2007, when they were taking action against the very thugs that appointed them. Thats why they were hailed as heroes, and tahts why the dictator had to get rid of them.
Swiss close case against Zardari; $60 mln unfrozen
Updated at: 2340 PST, Tuesday, August 26, 2008
GENEVA: Swiss judicial authorities said on Tuesday they had closed a money-laundering case against Pakistani presidential candidate Asif Ali Zardari and released $60 million frozen in Swiss accounts over the past decade.
Daniel Zappelli, Geneva’s chief prosecutor, said that he had no evidence to bring Zardari, 55, the widower of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, to trial.
Pakistan’s government recently dropped out of all related cases it had initiated in Switzerland, saying the couple could not be accused of corruption, he said.
Zappelli said the full $60 million in assets, seized at the request of the Pakistan authorities, had been released.
“All the money has been unfrozen. For money-laundering to be proven, you have to show it was the product of a crime,” Zappelli told reporters.
“Pakistan has withdrawn its requests for judicial assistance and has said it has no claim on the frozen assets,” he said.
Zardari’s lawyer Saverio Lembo welcomed Zappelli’s decision to shelve the long-running case. “It confirms what my client has pleaded since 1997,” he told reporters.
no man, they did not make up for anything. If we go by that doctrine than we will have to forgive everyone because at some point in time they did something that was good, whats the use of laws then? break the law, support the person who breaks teh law, and u get punished for that.
-Taking notice of the kidnapped people sold out to the west
-Handling overwhelming pending cases in a record number of time
-Sticking it up to the Govt, with Shortcuts privatization scams involving the steel mill
-Taking notice of 'operation butcher' at the Lal Masjid
-Taking notice of the illegally acquired lavish farmhouses in Islamabad, which involved both Musharraf and Shauakat Aziz and some of their stooges
etc etc
[quote]
If we go by that doctrine than we will have to forgive everyone because at some point in time they did something that was good, whats the use of laws then? break the law, support the person who breaks teh law, and u get punished for that.
[/quote]
Kisi CJ ke andar Ifti sey pehley itney balls nahee they achey kaam karney ke
nope, what is wrong is wrong. I cant kill someone to take over his business and then say oh but i gave so much zakat and grew the business so much and empoyed so many ppl and increased minimum wages and provided free education.
all that may well be good, but the murder stays.
so in this case all that they may ahve done that was good does not erase what they did that was wrong.
otherwise people can use the same excuse and say well then excuse musharraf for the coup, because he did try to make things better.
yeah Nawaz badmash’s janwar did not attack supreme court for any reason other than a picnic. :halo:
Please dont use such harsh comparisons for Musharrafs illegal coup
Nawaz just wanted to replace him, its not like Sajjad was ‘doing’ anything to provoke Nawaz, the latter was just on a power trip. Leghari bhi shareefoon ki tarha chup tha, karamat bhi shareefoon ki tarha chup tha, and sajjad bhi shareefoon ki tarha chup tha.
the point which you may be unable to understand is that wrongs can not be justified by teh rights, whats wrng is wrong, and the justices that blessed military rule were wrong and sell outs.
really? so u really dont know the whole deal between sajjad and nawaz?
please read up on it.
