Sunday, April 14, 2013

Treason Trial of Pervez Musharraf and Pandora's Box.

The Court should dispel the notion that it did not contemplate a return in the 2009 judgment and has now been caught slightly off guard. The Supreme Court now has to assert itself with the same force on the Commando as they customarily display with the elected government and its officials. That is not easy. According to one interpretation, the July 31, 2009 judgment seems to suggest that all those who aided and abetted the subversion might also be complicit. And that list has some powerful people. To quote MD Taseer, davaar-i-hashr mera naam-i-amal na dekh, is mein kuchh parda nasheenon kay bhi naam atay hain. The murders of Shaheeds Akbar Bugti and BB cannot be allowed to slide. It will, perhaps, be helpful to revisit his statements, his arrogance, apathy and smugness on the murders whenever in the future, one begins to feel even slightly sorry for the Commando. He does not deserve it. This is all the more important as we awkwardly mule through to elections. Generals Aslam Beg, Asad Durrani and Hameed Gul still mock us. Mock us, even after admitting to rigging and stealing an election, and the Supreme Court holding the first two guilty. General Musharraf’s referendum and the rigged 2002 elections should be fresh in our collective memory. The murder of Nawab Akbar Bugti represented a distinct breaking point for many Baloch nationalists. As welcome efforts are underway to encourage some Baloch nationalists to contest elections, it should be remembered reconciliation without truth, without accountability is unreasonable and unnatural. Reference: Punishing the Dictator By Saroop Ijaz Published: April 13, 2013

2008: THE nation is heaving a sigh of relief as one of the most painful phases in Pakistan`s history has ended with Musharraf`s resignation. Should the matter end here? Gen Musharraf dismissed judges and violated the constitution but all dictators are guilty of that. His greatest crime was that he compromised Pakistan`s national interests to consolidate his power when he was an international pariah and brought Pakistan to the brink of Balkanisation by his dual track policy of covertly supporting the Afghan Taliban while allowing the Americans to conduct air strikes on Pakistan. But it is impossible to forgive him for insulting the people of Pakistan by telling them in the full glare of TV cameras that they should eat chicken if pulses are expensive (`daal mahngi hey to murgi khain`). Marie Antoinette of France said, “Let them eat cake” when confronted by the poverty of the people and shortage of bread. She was executed by guillotine at the height of the French Revolution in 1793 for the crime of treason. A section of our English-speaking elite believe Musharraf was trying to save them from the Taliban. This makes you wonder how ignorant one can be. He secured the evacuation of more than 3,000 Taliban and militants between Nov 15 and 23, 2001 from Kunduz in Afghanistan, where they had been trapped, to Pakistan`s tribal areas from where they were to later organise and conduct terrorist attacks. Musharraf used the intelligence agencies to rig the 2002 elections to enable the supporters of religious militants and Lal Masjid extremists, such as Chaudhry Shujaat and Ijazul Haq, to gain power in the centre and the religious elements to gain ground in the NWFP and Balochistan. The politics of fear and blackmail was practised, fully exploiting the apprehensions of Pakistanis and the West of religious extremists. This double game was played to a degree where it forced a former general and corps commander Faiz Ali Chisti to make a shocking statement to an international news agency on Jan 27, 2008. Chishti said he would “not be surprised” if Musharraf had engineered terror attacks to manipulate his image in the West. “Musharraf is an intellectually dishonest person. He is a clever ruler, who makes the US and the West believe that they can only effectively deal with Al Qaeda as long as he is in power,” Chishti said. REFERENCE: Musharraf must face an open trial By Yousuf Nazar August 19th, 2008

2002 The Getaway Questions surround a secret Pakistani airlift. by Seymour M. Hersh January 28, 2002  In Afghanistan last November, the Northern Alliance, supported by American Special Forces troops and emboldened by the highly accurate American bombing, forced thousands of Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters to retreat inside the northern hill town of Kunduz. Trapped with them were Pakistani Army officers, intelligence advisers, and volunteers who were fighting alongside the Taliban. (Pakistan had been the Taliban’s staunchest military and economic supporter in its long-running war against the Northern Alliance.) Many of the fighters had fled earlier defeats at Mazar-i-Sharif, to the west; Taloqan, to the east; and Pul-i-Khumri, to the south. The road to Kabul, a potential point of retreat, was blocked and was targeted by American bombers. Kunduz offered safety from the bombs and a chance to negotiate painless surrender terms, as Afghan tribes often do. Surrender negotiations began immediately, but the Bush Administration heatedly—and successfully—opposed them. On November 25th, the Northern Alliance took Kunduz, capturing some four thousand of the Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters. The next day, President Bush said, “We’re smoking them out. They’re running, and now we’re going to bring them to justice.” Even before the siege ended, however, a puzzling series of reports appeared in the Times and in other publications, quoting Northern Alliance officials who claimed that Pakistani airplanes had flown into Kunduz to evacuate the Pakistanis there. American and Pakistani officials refused to confirm the reports. On November 16th, when journalists asked Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld about the reports of rescue aircraft, he was dismissive. “Well, if we see them, we shoot them down,” he said. Five days later, Rumsfeld declared, “Any idea that those people should be let loose on any basis at all to leave that country and to go bring terror to other countries and destabilize other countries is unacceptable.” At a Pentagon news conference on Monday, November 26th, the day after Kunduz fell, General Richard B. Myers, of the Air Force, who is the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked about the reports. The General did not directly answer the question but stated, “The runway there is not usable. I mean, there are segments of it that are usable. They’re too short for your standard transport aircraft. So we’re not sure where the reports are coming from.” Pakistani officials also debunked the rescue reports, and continued to insist, as they had throughout the Afghanistan war, that no Pakistani military personnel were in the country. Anwar Mehmood, the government spokesman, told newsmen at the time that reports of a Pakistani airlift were “total rubbish. Hogwash.” In interviews, however, American intelligence officials and high-ranking military officers said that Pakistanis were indeed flown to safety, in a series of nighttime airlifts that were approved by the Bush Administration. The Americans also said that what was supposed to be a limited evacuation apparently slipped out of control, and, as an unintended consequence, an unknown number of Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters managed to join in the exodus. “Dirt got through the screen,” a senior intelligence official told me. Last week, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld did not respond to a request for comment. Pakistan’s leader, General Pervez Musharraf, who seized power in a 1999 coup, had risked his standing with the religious fundamentalists—and perhaps his life—by endorsing the American attack on Afghanistan and the American support of the Northern Alliance. At the time of Kunduz, his decision looked like an especially dangerous one. The initial American aim in Afghanistan had been not to eliminate the Taliban’s presence there entirely but to undermine the regime and Al Qaeda while leaving intact so-called moderate Taliban elements that would play a role in a new postwar government. This would insure that Pakistan would not end up with a regime on its border dominated by the Northern Alliance. By mid-November, it was clear that the Northern Alliance would quickly sweep through Afghanistan. There were fears that once the Northern Alliance took Kunduz, there would be wholesale killings of the defeated fighters, especially the foreigners. Musharraf won American support for the airlift by warning that the humiliation of losing hundreds—and perhaps thousands—of Pakistani Army men and intelligence operatives would jeopardize his political survival. “Clearly, there is a great willingness to help Musharraf,” an American intelligence official told me. A C.I.A. analyst said that it was his understanding that the decision to permit the airlift was made by the White House and was indeed driven by a desire to protect the Pakistani leader. The airlift “made sense at the time,” the C.I.A. analyst said. “Many of the people they spirited away were the Taliban leadership”—who Pakistan hoped could play a role in a postwar Afghan government. According to this person, “Musharraf wanted to have these people to put another card on the table” in future political negotiations. “We were supposed to have access to them,” he said, but “it didn’t happen,” and the rescued Taliban remain unavailable to American intelligence. According to a former high-level American defense official, the airlift was approved because of representations by the Pakistanis that “there were guys— intelligence agents and underground guys—who needed to get out.” Once under way, a senior American defense adviser said, the airlift became chaotic. “Everyone brought their friends with them,” he said, referring to the Afghans with whom the Pakistanis had worked, and whom they had trained or had used to run intelligence operations. “You’re not going to leave them behind to get their throats cut.” Recalling the last-minute American evacuation at the end of the Vietnam War, in 1975, the adviser added, “When we came out of Saigon, we brought our boys with us.” He meant South Vietnamese nationals. “ ‘How many does that helicopter hold? Ten? We’re bringing fourteen.’ REFERENCE: The Getaway Questions surround a secret Pakistani airlift. by Seymour M. Hersh January 28, 2002

2009 The law prevails Saturday, August 01, 2009 : It was a long wait but the verdict came in the form of a short order at about 8.15 in the evening. There had been increasingly fevered and uninformed speculation as to the reasons for the delay and the verdict had been expected towards the end of the afternoon — but in the end it turned out that the delay was because the fourteen-member bench sitting with Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry had been doing their job thoroughly. Occasionally, the use of hyperbole is justified, and this is one of them. The decision by the Supreme Court that the actions of then-President Musharraf on November 3, 2007, were unconstitutional is almost seismic in terms of the effect it is going to have in the near term, and perhaps for the nation as a whole for many years to come. He is described as a subverter and usurper of the Constitution and must have watched developments from London with a degree of apprehension. All of the institutions of state are going to feel the fall-out from the verdict and it may alter the shape of our political landscape too. The bench had to deliberate on the possible consequences of their decision in respect of the 37 ordinances promulgated under the emergency (a state of emergency which we should remember that Musharraf admitted himself was illegal and unconstitutional) and will also have been much-exercised by what their decision was going to mean to those judges who had taken the Kings Shilling and signed themselves into illegality. There are some sixty PCO judges, and if they are all shown the door in the near future it will leave Balochistan, for instance, entirely without a senior judiciary. Appointments made by the de-facto Chief Justice Dogar are now deemed unconstitutional, including those he made to the High Court and the Supreme Court. Whilst the verdict clarifies the constitutional position regarding Musharraf’s actions it opens a Pandora’s Box of troubles and a blizzard of questions. Does the verdict open the way for Parliament to take action against Musharraf, and should Musharraf be the only one to answer for actions that were taken by a collectivity of people not a single individual alone? If the PCO judges are all to be removed who is to replace them and what is the validity of any verdicts they may have delivered both during the time of the past government and the current one? Precisely why was Aitzaz Ahsan visiting the Chief of Army Staff and what were they discussing — and could it have been connected to the fate of General Kayani’s past boss? Some questions we will get answers to in the near term and others we may never get to hear the truth of. Answers aside, we saw the rule of law prevail on this day, and quiet celebration is in order. On Friday July 31 we were able to demonstrate to the world that we have a free and independent judiciary prepared to take difficult decisions. It is a step along the democratic road that was worth the wait — we now wait to see if the political establishment has the courage of the judicial, and follow the path they have signposted for us as a nation. REFERENCE: The law prevails Saturday, August 01, 2009

He finishes the call with a dose of fair warning. "You should understand something," Pervez Musharraf says, finally to Benazir Bhutto. "Your security is based on the state of our relationship." She hangs up the phone feeling as though she might be sick. 2009 NEW YORK: The US intelligence agencies taped Benazir Bhutto's phone calls, prior to her arrival in Pakistan, in a bid to "play under-the-table, cut-throat games more effectively", a new book has revealed. "The Way of the World" authored by a Pulitzer Prize winning US journalist Ron Suskind, is full of disclosures, with its fair portion about Musharraf-Benazir conversation including Musharraf's quote "You should understand something, your security is based on the state of our relationship". Suskind writes that Benazir Bhutto's case of returning to Pakistan was strongly backed by Condoleezza Rice-led State Department and equally opposed by Vice President Dick Cheney who considered Bhutto "complicated and unpredictable". The book said whenever Benazir Bhutto went harsh on Musharraf, the US ambassador in Islamabad advised her to "tone down any criticism of Musharraf". The author said Bhutto often regretted that Vice President Cheney never called Musharraf asking him to "behave" and instead kept her pressing for coming to terms with him. As Musharraf, during telephonic conversations, refused entertaining her demand of revoking provision barring her becoming PM for third time, Bhutto said: "What you can give me (then)? May be some real reform in election commission". Musharraf said: "She should not be hoping for much there (reforms), either". The book revealed US intelligence once intercepted Bhutto's conversation with her son, Bilawal. "They've been listening to her calls for months, including an earlier call she made to her son.

" Telephonic conversation with Musharraf: 

 Referring to conversation that took place three weeks before her return when she was meeting US lawmakers at Capitol Hill, including John Kerry, and State Department officials, he writes: "Suddenly the couple (Bhutto-Zardari) turns. One of Bhutto's aides is rushing towards them, saying he's just gotten a call from one of Musharraf's aides. The aide says that Musharraf can't support Bhutto on a key demand — the repeal of the provision prohibiting a third term for the prime ministers — and he wants to talk to her... Bhutto takes the call from Islamabad. "The twice-elected provision is important to me," she tells Musharraf. "If you're retreating from that, what can you give me? May be some real reform in the election commission?" He says she shouldn't be hoping for much there, either. In their many calls, he's been surprisingly cordial, often quite reasonable. But something has changed. His voice is harsh, almost mocking her. She asks if the US officials have had conversation with him that makes it clear that her safety is his responsibility. "Yes, someone has called", Musharraf says, and then laughs. "The Americans can call all they want with their suggestions about you and me, let them call," he tells her... He finishes the call with a dose of fair warning. "You should understand something," Pervez Musharraf says, finally to Benazir Bhutto. "Your security is based on the state of our relationship." She hangs up the phone feeling as though she might be sick.

 Condoleezza Rice Vs. Dick Cheney: 

" The initiative to reinsert Bhutto into Pakistan, was, in fact, launched and led by Rice and her State Department. Cheney's position, expressed to the president on several occasions, was 'don't mess with this,' according to one of his senior foreign policy advisers. 'Our feeling,' said Cheney's adviser, summing up the view of the vice president, "was that arranging this marriage can only backfire on us. Bhutto is complicated and unpredictable. It's best to just support Musharraf, give him whatever he wants or needs to stay in power.' 'Our position,' the advisor added, 'is that this whole thing with Bhutto is being run out of state. Let them fly or fall on their own." Reference: Musharraf linked Benazir’s security to her ties with him Umar Cheema Saturday, August 09, 2008

Seymour Hersh: Secret US Forces Carried Out Assassinations in a Dozen Countries, Including in Latin America: 

Seymour Hersh: Secret US Forces Carried Out Assassinations in a Dozen Countries, Including in Latin America: Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh created a stir earlier this month when he said the Bush administration ran an "executive assassination ring" that reported directly to Vice President Dick Cheney. “Under President Bush’s authority, they’ve been going into countries, not talking to the ambassador or to the CIA station chief, and finding people on a list and executing them and leaving,” Hersh said. Seymour Hersh joins us to explain. [includes rush transcript] - TUESDAY, MARCH 31, 2009

The fighting had begun in January 2005, following the refusal of General Pervez Musharraf's regime to prosecute an officer alleged to have raped a local doctor. Insurgents loyal to Nawab Bugti responded by storming the Sui, shutting down the source of an estimated 45 per cent of Pakistan's gas fields. Later, there were attacks on senior military commanders — including General Musharraf himself. “Don't push us,” General Musharraf warned Baloch leaders after that attack. “It isn't the 1970s when you can hit and run and hide in the mountains. This time you won't even know what hit you.” General Musharraf had, in fact, helped precipitate the crisis. In 2002, his military regime helped bring an Islamist coalition, the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal, to power in Balochistan. In an insightful article, the journalist Najam Sethi noted this alienated “the old non-religious tribal leadership as well as the new secular urban middle classes of Balochistan who [saw] no economic or political space for themselves in the new military-mullah dispensation.” REFERENCE: Inside Balochistan's dirty war BY PRAVEEN SWAMI February 24, 2012

2008 US wants Musharraf fairly treated WASHINGTON Now that the political leadership is firmly in control, the United States does not want any ambiguities about ISI`s role in the war on terror, a State Department official told Dawn. In an exclusive briefing, the official also said the United States wanted President Pervez Musharraf to be treated with respect even after his ouster. Since officials conducting such briefings are not named, Dawn cannot identify the official who explained in detail how the United States stayed engaged with Pakistani leaders throughout the process that led to a peaceful resolution of the impeachment dispute. “I think it is going to be very important that every organisation, every institution, is completely lined up to protect the nation,” said the official while explaining how Washington expected Pakistan`s political leadership to fight terrorism. “That means there can`t be any ambiguities about ISI anymore,” said the official. Asked if there were ambiguities about ISI`s role in the war on terror, the official said “Sure, there have been for years.” Asked if the United States made sure that Mr Musharraf was not arrested or tried for alleged violations of the Pakistani Constitution, the official said “I would not say we had made sure. We have always said he is a friend of ours and he needs to be treated with respect.” Asked if the US would continue to use its influence to ensure that Mr Musharraf was not arrested or tried after his ouster, the official said “Our desire to see him treated with respect will always be the case. How it plays out, what exact deals they make, is up to them.” The official said the United States also encouraged Britain and Saudi Arabia to get involved in the process that led to Mr Musharraf`s resignation. 

The Saudis sent their intelligence chief Prince Muqrin bin Abdul Aziz and the British sent their former ambassador in Islamabad, Mark Lyall Grant, to negotiate the terms for Mr Musharraf`s departure. “He is a free man, he can go where he wants,” said the official when asked if the US administration would allow Mr Musharraf to live in the United States, particularly because it might no longer be safe for him to live in Pakistan. “Will you let him come to the US?” the official was asked again. “He is free to go where he wants,” he said. “Will the US give him a visa?” “I don`t see any reason why he would not qualify for a visa. I don`t know where he wants to go,” the official said. 

Asked if the US regretted that one of its closest allies in the war in terror was hounded out of power, the official said “I don`t even know I would put it that way. Pakistan has faced a lot of trouble over the last year, whether it is the end of them, I don`t know. We have to see what the government is able to do now.” “But you did try to prevent him from going to this slippery slope that ultimately led to his departure?” “We have always encouraged people to respect democracy. We advised him not to impose a state of emergency on Nov 3. He made a lot of decisions … and he is living with the consequences of making those decisions.” The official explained that instead of getting directly involved in the impeachment dispute, the US administration “let events play out”. The United States, however, “encouraged” everyone to respect the democratic process, “and let it take its course,” the official said. He claimed that while the US did not give any advice to the conflicting parties, it kept in touch with the players. According to the official, the US Embassy in Islamabad played a key role in these negotiations because Washington avoided direct contacts with the players. “There were no conversations between Washington and Islamabad since Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani`s visit” to the US capital last month. The official also rejected media reports that President Musharraf telephoned President Bush twice during the impeachment crisis but Mr Bush refused to take his calls. “I don`t think it is true that he called twice,” he said. The US official noted that the Feb 18 elections in Pakistan brought a moderate government which now had to deal with the problems of terrorism, a weak economy and had to build democratic institutions. “They have to make sure that they will not allow themselves to be distracted by their politics,” the official said. We are concerned about what Pakistan is able to accomplish in the war on terror,” he said. “It is important to Pakistan. It is important to Pakistan`s neighbours. It is important to us.” He said that no senior US official was planning to visit Pakistan in the near future but the US ambassador in Islamabad would stay in touch with all political players. REFERENCE: US wants Musharraf fairly treated August 20th, 2008

ISLAMABAD: Retired Gen Pervez Musharraf who returned to the country last month with a slogan to “save Pakistan” is now struggling to save himself and stay relevant in the coming polls after rejection of his nomination papers in three out of four constituencies. The rejection of the former military ruler’s nomination papers by the returning officers for the National Assembly constituencies in Islamabad (NA 48) and Karachi (NA 250) came on Sunday, a day before the Supreme Court is set to take up five petitions seeking his prosecution for high treason and for stopping him from participating in the polls.A bench comprising Justice Jawwad S. Khawaja and Justice Khilji Arif Hussain will hear the petitions filed by representatives of various bar associations and some other lawyers, asking the court to convict the former dictator for abrogating the constitution and to stop him from taking part in the polls.Earlier, the nomination papers of Gen Musharraf, who had formed his own party, the All Pakistan Muslim League (APML), had been rejected by the returning officer (RO) in Kasur (NA 139).Although the RO for NA 32 in Chitral accepted Gen Musharraf’s papers on the ground that the ex-president had not been convicted in any case, his plan to contest the polls could be jeopardised because the lawyers have announced that they will challenge the decision in high court.The ROs in Karachi, Islamabad and Kasur rejected Gen Musharraf’s papers on the basis of articles 62 and 63 of the constitution for his act of imposing emergency in the country in November 2007 in violation of the constitution and for keeping judges of the superior judiciary under unlawful detention. The ex-military ruler was also accused of not disclosing his source of income in his nomination papers whereas he has declared assets worth more than Rs760 million. REFERENCE: Musharraf allowed to run for Chitral seat BY Amir Wasim Dated 8 April 2012 ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court on Friday extended the transitory-bail granted to former military ruler Gen (r) Pervez Musharraf until April 18 during the hearing pertaining to the judges detention case, DawnNews reported.The court also ordered the All Pakistan Muslim League (APML) chief, who had personally appeared before the bench, to submit a bond amounting to Rs 500,000 and to appear in the next hearing over the case which was also adjourned until April 18.The DawnNews report added that the APML leader left the court towards his Chak-Shehzad residence in the suburbs of the federal capital city, after the hearing.Earlier Pervez Musharraf arrived, amid strict security arrangements, at the IHC to appear before the bench hearing the case of ‘illegal confinement’ of 62 judges after the former military ruler had declared a state of emergency in the country on November 3, 2007. REFERENCE: IHC extends Musharraf's transitory bail until April 18

Supreme Court Verdict on 3rd Nov 2007 Emergency Declaration by General Pervez Musharraf

Daily Dawn: Text of Supreme Court judgment August 1st, 2009 Time - Text of Supreme Court verdict Saturday, August 01, 2009

2009 - An exiled Musharraf will suffer more than an executed one Ansar Abbasi ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) did its job by ruling that General (retd) Pervez Musharraf had violated the Constitution on November 3, 2007 (and we know what the deadly consequences such a verdict entails). But the ruling dispensation, led by President Asif Ali Zardari, clearly has no intention to do its part by throwing the book at the dictator and reading him Article 6 dealing with treason. Official sources said that as a follow-up of the SC decision, handed down on July 31, the government would not direct the Interior Ministry to register an FIR against Musharraf on high treason charges for abrogating the Constitution on Nov 3. There were believed to be some guarantors, both local and international, who were given assurance last year by the present regime that once Musharraf resigned as president, he would not be prosecuted for his Nov 3 actions. Instead, the government was expected to give him indemnity for his Nov 3 actions, now declared unconstitutional, through parliament. But it could not be done. Majority of the government power players themselves are in the dark on the issue, as it is the presidency that is to exclusively decide on how to deal with the matter after the apex court has clearly declared Musharraf’s action as unconstitutional. Legally speaking though, it is the Interior Ministry, which has the exclusive mandate for registering an FIR under the High Treason (Punishment) Act, 1973. REFERENCE: An exiled Musharraf will suffer more than an executed one Ansar Abbasi Sunday, August 02, 2009

2009 - Musharraf’s ball in government’s court, but judiciary still matters BY Muhammad Ahmad Noorani  ISLAMABAD: The SC judgment has paved the way for the initiation of high treason proceedings against Musharraf, who committed these unconstitutional acts by imposing emergency as the COAS and holding the Constitution in abeyance, top legal experts say. Athar Minallah, while talking to The News, said that now it will be very easy for the federal government to initiate high treason proceedings against the “dictator and usurper” Musharraf for committing the Nov 3rd acts. He said that there was a dire need to educate the masses that the courts could not take up such matters that were to be dealt with by the federal government according to the law. “Yes, because of Pakistani people’s sacrifices and the movement for the independence of the judiciary, the common people have many expectations from the judiciary,” Athar said, adding, “But the judiciary could only go to the extent it is permitted and defined in the Constitution.” He said that it was clearly defined in the High Treason (Punishment) Act-1973 that only the federal government would initiate high treason proceedings. “I am of the view that the Supreme Court should not be dragged into this as according to the High Treason Act, it is the duty of the federal government alone,” Athar added. When asked if the federal government didn’t initiate the high treason proceedings against Musharraf even now after such a clear and wonderful judgment, Athar replied that even then some aggrieved person would approach one of the provincial high courts. “Someone will file a petition in the high court,” he said, adding “The petitioner will have to prove himself as an aggrieved party in the high court.” Athar said, “The response of the federal government will be of great importance in this case as it will either have to initiate these proceedings or will have to give strong basis and reasons for not starting high treason proceedings against dictator Musharraf.” He said that a politician or a political party could easily prove itself as an aggrieved party. He said even some provincial government could also prove itself as an aggrieved party. Athar said he hoped that the federal government and parliament would now play its role and there would be no need to approach the superior courts for this. Athar said that it should be appreciated that the superior judiciary was passing through a reformation process and it shouldn’t be overloaded with unnecessary things. The executive should also go through similar reformation and remove all problems in way of its smooth functioning. The Supreme Court has handed down the historic verdict and paved the way for constitutionalism in the country, he said. Athar said that it was high time for parliament and the government to set an example by punishing the conspirator Musharraf in accordance with the Article Six of the Constitution so in future no Army adventurism could be possible and the poor country could move towards having a sustainable democracy. REFERENCE: Musharraf’s ball in government’s court, but judiciary still matters BY Muhammad Ahmad Noorani Sunday, August 02, 2009

The 1973 Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan

 6. High treason. [4A] [(1)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.] 

 (2) Any person aiding or abetting [4B][or collaborating] the acts mentioned in clause (1) shall likewise be guilty of high treason. 

 [4C] [(2A) An act of high treason mentioned in clause (1) or clause (2) shall not be validated by any court including the Supreme Court and a High Court.] 

 (3) [5] [Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)] shall by law provide for the punishment of persons found guilty of high treason.

30 Jun 2005 - Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry sworn in as Chief Justice under PCO

Iftikhar Chawdhry taking Oath under PCO by RohailAsghari

July 01, 2005 ISLAMABAD: Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry was sworn in as chief justice of Pakistan on Thursday. President Pervez Musharraf administered oath to him at the presidency. Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz, National Assembly Speaker Chaudhry Amir Hussain, cabinet ministers, chief ministers and other dignitaries including several foreign diplomats attended the ceremony. Justice Iftikhar will serve as chief justice for a record period of eight and half years till December 11, 2013, and almost all serving judges except for Justices Tassaduq Hussain Jillani and Nasirul Mulk will retire without having a chance of becoming chief justice. Justice Iftikhar started his professional career in 1974. He was a lawyer for more than 16 years and became a judge of the Balochistan High Court on November 6, 1990. He became chief justice of the Balochistan High Court on April 22, 1999. Later, he was elevated as judge of the Supreme Court on February 4, 2000. He is also the chairman of the Enrolment Committee of the Pakistan Bar Council, which issues licenses to lawyers to practice in the Supreme Court. Justice Iftikhar was the most senior judge of the Supreme Court after Chief Justice Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, who retired on June 29. He was designated chief justice by the president by an announcement last month. All bar associations and representatives of other judicial departments have hailed Justice Iftikhar’s appointment for being in consonance with the principles of seniority and merit. Justice Iftikhar has authored several landmark judgements and was a bench member for almost every important case. His fellow judges acknowledge his acumen and prudence in constitutional and statutory matters besides his sagacity in adjudication of public litigation. REFERENCE: Justice Iftikhar sworn in as CJP Friday, July 01, 2005 Five judges elevated to SC 5 February 2000 DAWN WIRE SERVICE

Where has US aid to Pakistan gone? BY Mariana Baabar Saturday, June 02, 2007  ISLAMABAD: The billions of dollars in US military aid to Pakistan since September 11, 2001, without any accountability, has now been billed as a “tsunami of new funding”. Washington’s Centre for Public Integrity, in its report, says that today human rights activists, critics of the Pakistani government and members of Congress want to know, where most of the money — totalling in the billions — coming through a Defence Department programme, subject to virtually no Congressional oversight, has disappeared to. The Centre says that this is a major finding of more than a year of investigation by the Centre for Public Integrity’s International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ). US military aid to Pakistan since September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks includes almost $5 billion in coalition support funds, a programme controlled by the Defence Department to reimburse key allies in the global war on terror. Pentagon reports that the ICIJ obtained through the Freedom of Information Act requests show that Pakistan is the No 1 recipient of these funds — receiving more than 10 times the amount that went to the No 2 recipient, Poland — and that there is scant documentation of how the money was used. Pakistan also benefited from other funding mechanisms set up in the aftermath of the 2001 attacks. In three years after the attacks, Pakistan was the third-largest recipient of the Pentagon’s new regional defence counter terrorism fellowship programme, designed to train foreign forces in counter terrorism techniques. More than $23 million was earmarked for Pakistan in fiscal 2006 for “improving counter terrorism strike capabilities” under another new Pentagon programme referred to colloquially as Section 1206 training, which allows the Pentagon to use a portion of its annual funding from Congress to train and equip foreign militaries. Pakistan finished first in the race for this new Pentagon-controlled training. 

 The US State Department rates Pakistan’s human rights record as poor and reports a long litany of abuses. That nourishes critics’ claims that the US largesse has been put to abusive purposes, including to buy weapons that have been turned against Pakistani civilians and to offer bounties on suspects the US is seeking. According to Senator Sana Baloch, an opposition lawmaker who fled the country out of safety concerns, the US has several military bases inside Pakistan, including some in the senator’s home province of Balochistan. “Most of the US bases are based in Balochistan,” Baloch told ICIJ in an interview. “One or two of them are in Kharan, my own home district. The US is using the bases in this area for the war on terror. We are very supportive of the US in this role.” The majority of the new US funding to Pakistan has come in the form of billions of dollars of coalition support funds (CSF), a post-9/11 funding mechanism created to reimburse key countries for expenses incurred in supporting American counter terrorism operations. According to K Alan Kronstadt, an expert on South Asia at the Congressional research service, by August 2006, CSF accounted for roughly $4.75 billion of the military aid Pakistan received from the US since the terrorist attacks. Pentagon documents obtained by ICIJ say the money that went to Pakistan was largely for “military operations on the Afghanistan border.” Coalition support funds are considered a reimbursement by some and a blank check by others. Craig Cohen, the co-author of a recent Centre for Strategic and International Study on US aid to Pakistan, asked rhetorically whether CSF money is “intended to yield some sort of specific action on the part of the government,” adding, “If so, there’s clearly no oversight.” Olga Oliker, an expert on US defence policy and co-author of a recent RAND think tank report on the human rights performance of internal security forces in South Asia, said she’s concerned that US-made weapons that go to Pakistani security forces and US training that the forces receive are being used against civilian populations. “In implementing assistance,” she told ICIJ, “the US has paid relatively little attention to human rights abuses and oversight. People weren’t paying attention.” The new Democratic-controlled Congress has taken a greater interest in CSF payments to Pakistan. Under the previous GOP majority, there was virtually no oversight of CSF payments to any country. In January 2007, the House of Representatives acted to impose conditions on military aid to Pakistan by adopting the Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act of 2007. Section 1442 of the bill relates to Pakistan. It identifies areas of concern for US policy, including the need for Pakistan to curb the proliferation of nuclear technology, to address the presence of the Taliban and other extremist forces and to secure its borders to prevent movement of terrorists. The bill would impose limits on foreign assistance to Pakistan, declaring that the US assistance may not be approved until “the president determines and certifies to the appropriate Congressional committees that the government of Pakistan is making all possible efforts to prevent the Taliban from operating in areas under its sovereign control. “In addition, Pakistan would be required to demonstrate that it is making significant steps toward free and fair parliamentary elections in 2007.” The bill also requires that the president submit a report describing the long-term strategy of US engagement with Pakistan. “The American-supplied military arsenal has been used against Baloch nationalists,” Senator Baloch told ICIJ. He said he and others have gone to the State Department, “and the State Department says [the US has] given military hardware with no conditions.” A former US official, previously based in Pakistan, acknowledged to the ICIJ that in Balochistan “the [Pakistani] army stepped in with a pretty heavy hand last year.” REFERENCE: Where has US aid to Pakistan gone? BY Mariana Baabar Saturday, June 02, 2007

No comments: