Friday, April 26, 2013

List of the so-called Paid Pakistani Journalists.

“The Supreme Court’s website is not a gossip column,” argued Advocate Asma Jahangir representing Fareeha Idrees and Ramiza Nizami who were shown on the list as members of former prime minister’s entourage in one of his foreign trips, but they never went abroad. President of the Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists Parvez Shaukat, Shakil Turabi of Sana news agency, Moniza Jehangir and Rauf Klasra had also approached the court. “My grouse is that without verification the court ordered to place the list ‘A’ on its official website to defame people as if they are proclaimed offenders,” lamented Ms Asma. “What constitutional violation a journalist had committed even if he had gone abroad with the prime minister to perform his professional duty,” she asked, adding that the court had given legitimacy to a flawed list by putting it on its website, but it never placed names of 7,500 condemned prisoners on the website. Ms Asma argued that instead of approaching the apex court the petitioners should have filed defamation cases at a proper forum to clear their names. “You cannot put apple and oranges in the same basket and place it before the public,” she regretted. “We should not suffocate this court with self-righteousness.” The counsel argued that the court should clarify its order as no-one should be subjected to a smear campaign. The apex court never sent its registrar before the Public Accounts Committee or placed its accounts on the website, she said. REFERENCE: Media accountability: List ‘B’ contains no names: SC

Permanent Pain In The Neck Pakistani Anchors instead of Lecturing and be-fooling Pakistanis, should have read some history of Intelligence agencies and how Agents work! Now Agents like Dr Shahid Masood would educate Pakistanis on Secret Fund:) Off The Record (Allegations on Media) – 23rd April 2013 Pakistani Judiciary "Protects the Touts" & Insulted the Hapless Widows & Orphans - Judiciary Must follow 19 A of 1973 Constitution & be answerable to the Senate - Double Standards of Judiciary! Hamid Mir & Absar Alam Filed the petition to expose Journalists on Payroll and instead of that, the Supreme Court/Judiciary Insulted the Widows and Orphans and snatched their bread. Judiciary made sure today that "Become a  tout of Intelligence agencies" & prosper but Insult Widows & Orphans - Supreme Court is not telling the senate who are the Dual National Judges in Judiciary. Journalists who were and still are on payroll are missing from this list! One of them is Kamran Khan - who was on the payroll of Military Intelligence for Pak Rupees 7000/ only per month. Kamran Khan was really missed in the above list, he used to perform duties of a Rat or Stool Pigeon for only 500/ Pak Rupees per month - for Intelligence Bureau 

Kamran Khan of GEO TV on Military Intelligence Payroll


Kamran Khan of GEO TV on Intelligence Bureau Payroll

Irfan Siddiqui Educating Pakistanis about Secret Funds (Remember Weekly Takbeer) Irfan Siddiqui used to be a Paid Tout of Jamat-e-Islami i.e. Syed Salahuddin (beneficiary of Mehran Bank Funding) and Syed Salahuddin's head was way up the posteriors of General Zia , Hamid Gul and Afghan Jihad and above all a very senior Journalist Mr. Mazhar Abbas thinks that 180 Million Pakistanis are fool and he is taking everyone for a ride by saying "Journalists are trapped and corrupted" , Ah! Innocence! and Journalists are like some school going kids who can be trapped and used as per the whims and wishes, here is an eye opener on Jang Group of Newspapers, The News and GEO TV - Media Gate of Jang Group & GEO TV. How about reviewing the names of the journalists who received money from Infamous Mehran Bank Scam , 1 - Altaf Hussain Qureshi and 2 - Mustafa Sadiq , Rs. 0.5 Million Reference: We never learn from history - 3 by Ardeshir Cowasjee 11 August 2002 Sunday 01 Jamadi-us-Saani 1423 Asghar Khan Case Detailed Judgement (Mehran Bank Scandal)

Tonight With Moeed Pirzada (Secret Funds Details Published) – 23th April 2013

Tonight With Moeed Pirzada - 23th April 2013 by luckyzemtv

2012 : ISLAMABAD, July 19: Television anchors Hamid Mir and Absar Alam filed on Thursday a joint petition with the Supreme Court seeking an inquiry into the list of journalists and anchors who were allegedly granted favours by owners and administration of Bahria Town Ltd. They have asked the court to direct the Bahria Town and its former chairman Malik Riaz to appear along with a proof of all the persons, including journalists, military officials and bureaucrats and any other individual whom they have tried directly or indirectly to buy favours from. The context in which the petition has been filed is very clear. Soon after real estate tycoon Malik Riaz claimed that he had paid huge sums of money to Arsalan Iftikhar, the son of Supreme Court Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, for possible relief in certain court cases, a leaked conversation between Mr Riaz and two anchorpersons during intervals of a talk show had provoked public anger against the media. The following day a list apparently on the letterhead of the Bahria Town was circulated on social media, containing names of the anchors and journalists allegedly paid hefty amounts by the Bahria Town besides luxury cars, plots, houses and sponsored visits to foreign countries. The petition seeks directions to the Federal Board of Revenue to produce asset and income statements of all media persons under scrutiny and question. It also seeks directions to the Federal Investigation Agency to inquire as to who spread the list of media persons on social media and through short messaging service (SMS). The scope of the petition is wide ranging as it not only challenges the legality of establishment and maintenance of secret fund by the information ministry and seeks the court to summon complete record of the money doled out to various elements along with the purpose, but also pleads for asking the DG of Anti-Corruption of Punjab police to reveal reasons of hushing up a scam involving misuse of Rs640 million government funds. It also questions the legal status of code of conduct for the electronic media and calls for disclosure of assets and political affiliation of TV channel owners. The petition says it was essential that rags to riches story of Malik Riaz be made public as to how an ordinary man over the course of less than two decades became one of the richest man in the country. It questions the dubious nature of land acquisition by Malik Riaz and the Bahria Town and calls for exposing certain criminal element aiding and abetting Malik Riaz as his muscle by their active role in forcibly taking over possession of land from real owners. The petitioners have asked the court to either adjudicate and inquire into the issues itself or to constitute a commission for the purpose. REFERENCE: Journalists, anchors with alleged Bahria Town link: Petition filed in SC to seek probe BY Iftikhar A. Khan | 20th July, 2012

Now read as to who is addressing the Jang Forum on the Subject of Corruption.

2009: Rampant corruption real problem: Malik Riaz RAWALPINDI: There is no economic problem in Pakistan but the rampant corruption, and if there is no corruption and left alone by the US and Britain, the country could achieve self-reliance within four years. Malik Riaz Hussain, head of Bahria Town, stated this while speaking as chief guest at a forum on problems faced by the Pakistani expatriates in property affairs, particularly in purchase of plots and after that. The event was organised by Daily Jang and Geo News, London, and panellists included Lord Nazir Ahmed, Zubair Gul, Mohsin Akhter and Ahmed Shahzad while Iftikhar Qaiser hosted the forum. “In this regard, we had also suggested some steps through we could have repaid the country’s debt,” Malik Riaz said. “In fact, every big figure in Pakistan is part of land mafia as no poor can grab land of another, therefore, there is a need to lay hands on big fish. All those sitting in the government are part of the mafia, otherwise a law can be passed within 24 hours,” he said. Malik Riaz said that all areas have their own desperados who do not allow setting up of schools in the respective areas so that people could not get education. He said that he did not get education from college or university and has learnt everything from experiences of his life. He said that an under-construction university affiliated with Middlesex University of Britain would start functioning in Pakistan. “After the October 8, 2005 earthquake in Pakistan, the government had no machinery to remove debris and without any request from the government, we shifted our machinery to the quake-hit areas. We have left no room for a fraud in Bahria Town project and any other scheme in which it is a partner. We are always alert about the mafia. Whenever I announce a new scheme, the pocket plots are purchased there in a single night. Then I pay several times more to acquire such plots so that every person can get a plot,” Malik Riaz said. “Under a law of the Punjab government, if anybody purchase 80 per cent land anywhere, he can get the remaining 20 per cent land vacated after payment to the owners,” he added. The Bahria Town chief said that according to his estimates, currently Pakistan needs 700,000 new houses annually whereas the government is building only 250,000 houses. He said that neither he is a political person nor has any intention to join politics. He said he has allocated 75 per cent of his assets for welfare activities while the remaining 25 per cent is meant for his family. “There is nothing to worry about and expatriate Pakistanis should make investment in their homeland without any fear. Only there is a need for purchasing property and making investment in a planned manner,” he said. Malik Riaz said that Bahria Town is the largest housing project in Asia with annual turnover of $1 billion. He said that 20,000 people are employed in the Bahria Town project and thus it is source of income for 100,000 people. He said that Henry Ford, the owner of the American car manufacturer, Ford, impressed him immensely for being a semi-educated person like himself. Quoting Henry Ford that he desired always to be remembered as a philanthropist, Malik Riaz said it is his wish that instead of a real estate tycoon he is remembered as a welfare tycoon. A large number of Pakistani expatriates in Britain attended the forum held in a big hall of the House of Lords. There was so much rush of people that around 150 people stood for two hours while another 150 people could not attend the forum because the management of the hall had stopped them outside the hall. REFERENCE: Rampant corruption real problem: Malik Riaz News Desk Monday, January 19, 2009

Bolta Pakistan (Details of Secret Fund by supreme court) – 22nd April 2013

Bolta Pakistan - 22nd April 2013 by Malik_Jee

Shaheen Sehbai (Present Group Editor The News International of Jang Group/Geo TV) on January 05, 2000: The integrity check should simultaneously be launched by the peers of the profession at whatever forum they think would be appropriate. Perhaps this first hurdle may be the only big hurdle and may never be crossed. The peers, naturally those who come out unscathed and "clean", should sit down to formulate lists of those who have been publicly demonstrating a lack of intellectual, moral and professional integrity. Big names like Minhaj Barna, Mushahid Hussain, Maleeha Lodhi, Wajid Shamsul Hassan, Nazir Naji, Ataul Haq Qasmi, Ayaz Amir, Hussain Haqqani, Irshad Ahmed Haqqani, Najam Sethi, Nasim Zehra, Jamiluddin Aali and many others who sought or accepted political, diplomatic or government jobs, or joined political parties as activists, should be asked to explain why they did not quit journalism to do so and why they continued to use the profession to get, keep or regain lucrative jobs or positions of power. How do they retain, or claim to retain, their objectivity and credibility, once they have demonstrated their political ambitions. In the least they should have apologised to the profession. Some of them have been going in and out of journalism so frequently as if the profession was a revolving door only to be used when they needed a push to restore their lost position of political, economic or administrative influence and power. Some others, like the once-revered Minhaj Barna, who led the trade union movement of journalists and whose "Barna Group" of Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists still exists, accepted so petty, temporary and at times demeaning jobs that the entire profession could only hang its head in shame. Scenes when stalwarts of the profession like him were seen waiting outside offices of petty bureaucrats in Islamabad’s corridors of power, to get an extension of their foreign assignment were, to say the least, despicable, bringing no merit to Pakistani journalism. I would never forget a supposedly well known name in today's op-ed pages who, in order to "please" a lady ambassador in Washington, turned himself into her private photographer and started taking her pictures with all those present at a grand farewell dinner thrown at her official residence. For three hours this newspaper columnist behaved like a personal privately hired professional. He even carried his "act of sycophancy" to the next day at the airport where people went to see her off, clicking rolls and rolls of pictures with the ambassador sitting, standing, waving and smiling at every Tom, Dick, Harry and Larry. Even junior embassy staffers started making jokes about this senior journalist and his "buttering skills". To his ultimate disgrace, he was never obliged by the slick ambassador, despite his publicly self-demeaning conduct. But later these very skills worked well with the successor political government and he landed a cushy government job in Islamabad. The moment the government was ousted, his columns started attacking his previous employers. Still he retains his claim to be an "impartial and objective" analyst and writer and does not include himself in the long list of trapeze artists that crowd the media circus in Pakistan. REFERENCE: Who will Bell the Bad, Fat Cats? by Shaheen Sehbai January 05, 2000 TEXT

Nayyar Zaidi (Also contributed for The News/Jang) January 27, 2000 : This article is in response to Mr Shaheen Sehbai's Who will bell the bad, fat cats?. The author would like to clarify that it is not a personal attack, but an attempt to question the ideas and personal allegations expressed in the above article. In the words of the author, What proof did Mr Sehbai offer that the 12 people mentioned in the article had become millionaire(s) overnight and that the wealth they allegedly earned was unlawful?  "Who will bell the bad, fat cats?" This is a model piece of journalism i.e. it "reflects superficial thought and research, a popular slant and hurried distinguished from scholarly writing."(Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language). We all live in the proverbial glass house. Of course, anyone may decide if and when to cast the first stone. You have recklessly exercised that option. It is one thing to "measure" someone by a "yardstick". However, it is downright cruel to flog people publicly with what you may misguidedly characterize as a "yardstick". You refer to Minhaj Barna as "the once-revered...who led the trade union movement of journalists... (but) accepted so petty, temporary and at times demeaning jobs that the entire profession could only hang its head in shame...." Barna Saheb is still revered! What is a "petty" and "demeaning" job? Did he put an honest day's work in whatever job he held? Was he qualified for the job, no matter how petty and demeaning? It is better to do a demeaning job than to demean the job one does.

The "entire profession" of journalism ought to have hung its head in shame not because Barna Saheb allegedly sought and accepted "demeaning jobs" but because he had to do so. He did so much for this "entire  profession" and yet none of its self proclaimed vigilantes came to his rescue in his old age and in his time of need. What do you want? Journalists of "integrity" should murder their families and then commit suicide in their twilight years simply to please hypocrites among their ranks? Without responsibilities, we are all capable of being very bold. It is the welfare of those whom we love that makes us stoop--sometime to our own disliking. There is no such thing as objective and/or independent journalism. Let me give you an insight into the proper use of analogies because an analogy contains the genetic map, so to speak, showing you exactly the nature of the beast.

Media is called a watchdog, correct? The analogy of a watchdog tells us that it is definitely "owned" to protect certain specific interests. A watchdog is always on a leash. The owners must ensure that the dog doesn't relieve itself on the property of others just because it perceives itself as an "independent dog"! The watchdog is supposed to bark only at strangers and outsiders. If it barks at the owners or at fellow dogs, it becomes an irritation--not to be tolerated indefinitely. The day it bites or attempts to bite, it is put to sleep. For the time being, I am leaving your subtleties alone. But tell me, since when has someone trying "to please a Washington" has required observers to send a reference to the Journalistic Accountability Bureau (JAB)?

You are from Peshawar. Be understanding of the fundamental human right that "Har Bandey Nu'n Dil Peshauri Karan Da Hukk Hai" (Sorry folks, this cannot be translated). As for taking photographs at a farewell dinner or at the airport, let me say that "parting is such sweet sorrow" that I don't blame anyone for preserving it on the film for pure academic pleasure later on. You accuse "stalwarts of the profession" of "waiting outside the offices of petty bureaucrats" to "get an extension of their foreign assignment". Every journalist is not fortunate enough to have an unabashed practitioner of nepotism as an uncle at a major newspaper. Please understand that God Almighty did not allow us to choose our parents. The same goes about uncles! So, don't rub it in! The Pakistani "journalists" living or stationed here (in the West)have no right to judge their distant peers who live and practice journalism in a totally different environment. The only exception would be those who come out in public moaning and groaning about being victimized. We do not need an Altaf Hussain of journalism in United States! If you wish to hold peers accountable, a proper way is to evaluate their work and products. This can be done by taking specific stories and columns and measuring them with the "yardstick"of journalistic and linguistic principles. This may be done in a "media watch" type of column. Using your own approach, of suspecting the motives (the hidden agendas), please consider this (and correct me, if I am wrong): The is a business for profit web-site owned by you and/or your immediate family. You have advertisers who sponsor on the basis of "traffic" to the web-site. Your advertising rate also depends on the number of people who visit.

Please answer these questions, if you have any respect whatsoever for your own "credibility", if any, and "integrity", if any:

1) Are you losing your main source of income (DAWN Correspondent) in near future and, therefore, need to boost your income from other sources (like your web-site business)?

2) Have your web-site revenues fallen to a point where advertisers may withdraw unless you boost the traffic?

3) Or, you already have or plan to ask the advertisers to increase their rates because of the purported or anticipated increased traffic to your web site (as a result of this reckless attack on the professional integrity of your peers and others)?

It is this last possibility that disturbed me enough to oppose your approach. You may continue this disconcerting approach simply to maintain traffic to your web-site. By wilfully using a "popular slant" (see para three) you may be trying to increase your income at the expense of other peoples' reputations. This sort of attack is not protected by First Amendment, to the best of my belief. Please consult your lawyers (if it is Maggio & Kattar, please show it to them for your own sake, please). I give unsolicited advice only when I believe that irreparable harm could be caused to someone, if I (temporarily or forever) held both my peace and piece! The added controversy that may follow my response, may help you in the short-run, increasing "traffic" to your web-site. Perhaps, you used the term yardstick only as a figure of speech. It is one nasty instrument in real life. It is 36 inches long, it is very stiff and, if applied ruthlessly, it causes unbearable pain. This is why the prudent amongst us do not ask for it! REFERENCE: Only A Rat Asks Who Will Bell The Cat! by Nayyar Zaidi January 27, 2000 Nayyar Zaidi is a Washington-based writer and commentator on South Asian and Islamic affairs. He has been a subject matter expert for CNN since 1986 and has also appeared on major networks like CBS, ABC, PBS. TEXT

Thursday, April 25, 2013

Neutrality, Impartiality and Trial of Pervez Musharraf.

Musharraf's party today questioned the impartiality of the judge who revoked the former military ruler's bail and ordered his arrest, saying he had once served as a counsel for a radical cleric of the Lal Masjid here. Musharraf was remanded to judicial custody for a fortnight yesterday, two days after Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui of the Islamabad High Court cancelled his pre-arrest bail and directed police to detain him. The All Pakistan Muslim League, however, said Siddiqui's "personality is highly controversial" as he had earlier served as the lawyer for Abdul Aziz, one of the top clerics of the Lal Masjid, against which Musharraf ordered a military operation in 2007. Siddiqui also contested the 2002 general election on a Jamaat-e-Islami ticket from a parliamentary constituency in Rawalpindi, said APML spokesperson Aasia Ishaque. "Pervez Musharraf was subjected to judicial terrorism in the Islamabad High Court," she said. Siddiqui had represented Abdul Aziz in an anti-terrorism court following his arrest during the Lal Masjid operation and later succeeded in getting Aziz's home declared a "sub-jail" so that he could be detained at his residence, she added. "Personal vendetta against Pervez Musharraf is being carried out by appointing political workers as judges. It's very ironic that the lawyer of a terrorist is giving judgement in a terrorism case against Pervez Musharraf," Ishaque said. REFERENCE: Impartiality of judge hearing Pervez Musharraf's case questioned Sunday, Apr 21, 2013, 13:45 IST | Place: ISLAMABAD | Agency: PTI

Capital Talk (Pervez Musharraf Mulzim Ya Mujrim) – 22th April 2013

Capital Talk - 22th April 2013 by luckyzemtv



Now please note the discrepancies in the column of Former MD PTV, Jang Group, GEO TV, ARY, and Express News Employee Dr Shahid Masood's column of Disappeared Female Students of Lal Masjid and also note the role of Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (Alliance of Religio-Political Parties in Pakistan from 2002 to 2007 and ally of General Pervez Musharraf)

2007 ISLAMABAD: The three-year-old political sins of top MMA leaders have once again given a second lease of political life to General Pervez Musharraf at a very crucial phase, as the infamous 17th Amendment becomes the basis of the Supreme Court’s decision to allow a uniformed president to get himself re-elected for the next five years from the present assemblies. For many, the most-important thing is that the verdict of the Supreme Court has justified the recent claim of Musharraf that he had made with a lot of pride and arrogance in his choking voice that “let the agitators do their job, he would have the last laugh”. Likewise, the government’s prediction that it would win the case with a majority also turned out to be right. Meanwhile, the critical role of the MMA in facilitating the rule of Musharraf in uniform is so definite and irritating that during the two-week-long proceedings on the case, some judges did not forget to remind the religious parties about their ‘deeds’. It is now widely believed in the political circles that the MMA would go down in the history as a force which used political Islam not only to validate the rule of General Musharraf since October 12, 1999, but also helped him to become president in uniform first after the general election in 2002 and now in 2007 by providing legal and constitutional excuses to the Supreme Court to extend a favourable decision to a military general. One political observer said that if Musharraf gets himself re-elected as the president on October 6, it would be only because of the MMA leaders who had decided to vote in favour of 17th Amendment after striking a deal with a uniformed general and distorted the Constitution of 1973.  Likewise, General Musharraf once again would be feeling grateful to the MMA leaders, particularly Qazi Hussain Ahmed and Maulana Fazlur Rehman, whose single act not only gave him the crucial support when he needed it most, but it continued to yield results when he once again needed it. At the time of passage of the Legal Framework Order (LFO) in 2004 after the MMA leaders decided to betray the political forces engaged in desperate struggle against the rule of Musharraf, it was widely assumed that it might be only one-time “political sin” of the MMA leaders. But, now the SC verdict on Friday confirms the wild doubts of critics of the MMA that the country would continue to suffer from the havoc created by the decision of Qazi and Fazl. The MMA, nicked named as a “B team” of General Musharraf, had given a false impression after the 2002 elections that it would fight for the supremacy of the Parliament when President Musharraf would push his LFO for approval from the Legislature. In the absence of two former prime ministers – Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto – Qazi Hussain Ahmed and Fazlur Rehman simply hijacked the agitation movement of the opposition parties to oppose Musharraf and his LFO in the Parliament. The movement became so aggressive and popular in nature that at one stage, it emerged that Musharraf might yield to the rising political power of these forces. The international media and community were also giving serious attention to the political turmoil in Pakistan amid the rising pressure from the Commonwealth and the European Union on Musharraf to get legitimacy from the Parliament or he might lose their vital support. 

 The agitation movement within and outside the Parliament against the LFO was so effective that it crippled the Jamali government. At that time, Musharraf appointed two of his top and trusted generals, Maj Gen Zaki and Maj Gen Ehtasham Zamir, assisted by S M Zafar, to negotiate a secret deal with the MMA. Qazi, Fazl and Liaquat Baloch started meeting these generals late nights. Finally, a deal was brokered between the generals and the MMA, which exclusively benefited both the parties. The first reward was the continuation of the MMA-led NWFP government, share in the Balochistan cabinet and slot of the Opposition Leader in the National Assembly. Likewise, the MMA also got the references against its MPs blocked after certain forces tried to get them disqualified on account of educational qualification. After initial dents in its lost credibility, the MMA leaders once again revived their political credentials when they used Nawaz Sharif who, too easily, accepted their role as a major opposition when he started giving them more importance despite being partners of Musharraf in the government. The MMA got the real boost as a major opposition alliance, despite being part of Musharraf regime, when Nawaz Sharif gave them importance at London during the All Parties Conference and later formed an alliance with them. But, soon Nawaz realised that he was only being used by smart and shrewd politicians of the MMA to defuse his rising popularity as none of them turned up at the Islamabad airport on September 10 to receive him. It is interesting to note that the MMA leaders are so smart that they have not only been facilitating Musharraf in power but they have also been successfully acting as the real opposition to the regime. When contacted by The News, MNA Liaquat Baloch did not agree with the conclusion that the religio-political alliance was actually responsible for the continuation of Musharraf rule. He said the 17th Amendment had given benefits to all the parties, including all the women parliamentarians, minorities and other segments. He said that under the agreement with Musharraf, he was to take off his uniform by December 31, 2004, but he backed out. Likewise, the MMA leader said Musharraf was given concession only for one term and now he was allowed to contest the election in uniform without any valid justification. He said the doctrine of necessity was once again revived and the MMA should not be blamed at all. “What is our fault,” Baloch put a counter question. REFERENCE: Musharraf gets new lease of life, thanks to MMA BY Rauf Klasra Saturday, September 29, 2007

2007 Ejaz says he helped release Ghazi in terror cases Wednesday, April 11, 2007 ISLAMABAD: Federal Minister for Religious Affairs Ejaz-ul-Haq has admitted that he had made personal efforts to get Maulana Abdul Rashid Ghazi, Naib Khateeb of Lal Masjid, released in cases of terrorism. Expressing his views in a talk show on Geo TV alongside Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz Information Secretary Ahsan Iqbal, Nayyar Bukhari of the Pakistan People’s Party and Maulana Abdul Rashid Ghazi on Tuesday, the minister said he took the action after a written confirmation from the Maulana guaranteeing his good behaviour. Giving his side of the story in the programme, Maulana Abdul Rashid Ghazi denied the minister’s claim, saying he was never indicted in any terrorism case, while his car was impounded by police, which was never returned. He failed to give a satisfactory answer when asked about the fact that former chairman National Book Foundation Ahmad Faraz had registered an FIR against him on charges of forced occupation of land belonging to the Ministry of Education, but still no action was taken against him. Taking part in the debate, Ahsan Iqbal and Nayyar Bukhari accused Ghazi Abdur Rashid of conniving with the government to stage a socio-political drama to divert public attention from the ongoing judicial crisis. Ghazi said he has made it clear to PML-Q President Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain that the occupation of Children’s Library would continue until their demands for implementation of Islamic Shariah were fully met. Upon the terse comments, Ejaz-ul-Haq said if the Shujaat-Ghazi talks failed, the government would have no other option but launch a full-fledged operation at Lal Masjid. Meanwhile, Khateeb of Lal Masjid Maulana Abdul Aziz has started writing to the Ulema and the seminary students nationwide to seek their support in the ongoing row with the government. In his letters he urged the Ulema and students to rise against such social evils like liquor, obscenity and so-called “liberalisation”. 

The letters also urged all the students and the Ulema to proceed to Lal Masjid unarmed but with their batons and baggage for Aitekaf and speeding up their services for promulgation of Islamic values. They have been advised to avoid any prolonged bickering with personnel of the law-enforcement agencies and limit themselves to self-defence, refrain from rioting and destroying and burning public property at all costs. They have further been advised to rather offer themselves for jails but try to preach Islam and Islamic values, including Jihad to jail inmates, if detained by the government. On the other hand pamphlets have been distributed in Karachi by Tehrik-e-Talaba urging all to proceed to Islamabad on the call of Maulana Abdul Aziz. —Online Monitoring desk adds: talking to Geo News correspondent, Ejaz said that the administration of Lal-Masjid and the Jamia Hafsa was not showing flexibility in talks with the government. The minister warned of operation against it, which could result in the loss of lives if the matter remained unresolved. The federal minister said that senior Ulema, including scholars from Waziristan and Hangu, have been disappointed after failure of their efforts to convince Ghazi Abdul Rasheed and Maulana Abdul Aziz. Ejaz believed that restoring the writ of the government was not a difficult task, however, he added, the establishment was not willing to do it at the cost of human lives. Ejaz urged both Maulanas Abdul Aziz and Abdul Rashid Ghazi of Lal Masjid to adopt sagacious approach and avoid confrontation with the people. “Both the brothers should negotiate with the government and help reach a peaceful settlement of the issue as it is creating doubts in minds of the people of the country, he added. The people from various walks of life and the Ulema and Madrassa students persuaded them to give up but alas they did not pay heed to, he said. Terming one-month ultimatum issued by Lal Masjid absurd he said the Objective Resolution is the part of the Constitution and ensured that no law contrary to the Islamic injunctions can be enacted in the country. Responding to a question, he said enlightened moderation is not contrary to Islamic teachings as Islam stands for acquiring knowlege. It also preaches moderation as the best way of life. REFERENCE: Ejaz says he helped release Ghazi in terror cases Wednesday, April 11, 2007

Now please note the discrepancies in the column of Former MD PTV, Jang Group, GEO TV, ARY, and Express News Employee Dr Shahid Masood's column of Disappeared Female Students of Lal Masjid and compare it with the Lal Masjid Commission Report published in 2013.

2013 ‘103 killed in Lal Masjid, Jamia Hafsa operation’ * Report says 92 civilians among dead, no woman included  - ISLAMABAD: The report of a commission that probed the operation in Lal Masjid has verified from reports, claims, witnesses and media reports that 103 people were killed in the operation. The report by the one-man commission of Federal Shariat Court’s Justice Shahzado Shaikh was made public on the directives of the Supreme Court on Saturday. The commission worked on eight terms of reference, including how many persons, if any, male or female, civilian or law enforcement agencies’ personnel, lost their lives in the Jamia Hafsa-Lal Masjid operation. The commission’s 304-page report is comprehensive document, which stated that of the 103 persons killed, 92 were civilians and 11 belonged to the armed forces of Pakistan. Among the 92 civilian casualties, 76 were traced/identified, whereas 16 bodies remained unidentified. It verified that no other claim of any killing could be brought in front of the commission. On page 142 of the report, it is verified that 103 persons died in the operation and no woman was killed. It said that the number of persons died in the incident of Jamia Hafsa remained a mystery. During the proceedings before the Supreme Court of Pakistan from July 8, 2007 to December 4, 2012, different reports were submitted regarding the number of casualties. The commission on this account summoned the record of the deceased from all government departments and agencies, verified claims and statements from volunteers. The task before the commission was to analyse these reports and verify claims and reports. REFERENCE: ‘103 killed in Lal Masjid, Jamia Hafsa operation’ * Report says 92 civilians among dead, no woman included Sunday, April 21, 2013 GEO NEWS 2007 Lal Masjid operation: Report brings more troubles for Musharraf by Malik Asad | 21st April, 2013

Ugly Role of Pakistani Media, Pervez Musharraf & Lal Masjid (2007)
Ugly Role of Pakistani Media, Pervez Musharraf... by SalimJanMazari

 TOP Story (Parvez Musharraf Case) – 23rd April 2013
Top Story - 23rd april 2013 by Malik_Jee

Need for broader Lal Masjid probe by Zahid Hussain 6th December, 2012 Not the full picture: Lal Masjid commission report

What the Pakistani Press, particularly the Jang Group reported on Lal Masjid in 2007 contradicts what their TV Anchors telecast on the same issue in 2007 and even now they blatantly lie and distort the Issue of Lal Masjid. 

Here are the few headlines. Ghazi says Lal Masjid has guns Thursday, April 12, 2007 Local Taliban raid video shop, burn CDs in Islamabad by Shakeel Anjum Sunday, April 15, 2007 Wanted clerics back Jamia Hafsa students Rahimullah Yusufzai Wednesday, April 18, 2007 Lal Masjid cleric warns govt against any action by Muhammad Anis Saturday, April 28, 2007 ‘Suicide bombers given go-ahead’ by Mobarik A Virk Wednesday, July 04, 2007 Lal Masjid has 10,000 suicide bombers: Abdul Aziz by our correspondent Thursday, May 31, 2007 Hardliners ask Islamabad barbers not to shave beards Friday, April 13, 2007

Bay Laag (Are Lawyers Involved in Terrorism?) – 24th April 2013

laag on capital - 24th april 2013 by shozib

2007 Lal Masjid to set up ‘Shariat court’ ISLAMABAD: An announcement about the enforcement of Islamic Shariah will be made at the ‘Enforcement of Shariah and Azmat-e-Jihad’ conference being held here today (Friday) at Lal Masjid. A Shariat court comprising 10 muftis will be set up in this regard. The court will take decisions against those found involved in running brothels and following illegal practices. The Enforcement of Shariat and Azmat-e-Jihad conference will continue till Asar prayers. Noted Ulema will address the conference. A three-day Aitkaf has started in the central Lal Masjid and it will conclude on April 7. Thousands of people from across the country have reached Lal Masjid. Maulana Abdul Aziz, the prayer leader of Lal Masjid, said that an announcement about the enforcement of Shariah would be made in the conference and a Shariat court comprising 10 muftis would be set up. The court would caution that no one should operate brothels in Islamabad or Rawalpindi. If people did not refrain from pursuing un-Islamic practices, the students of Lal Masjid would take notice of it on their own. Meanwhile, the federal government has described the use of force in the Jamia Hafsa and Lal Masjid issues as the last option. Sources told Online news agency that Home Secretary Kamal Shah reviewed the whole situation at a high-level meeting on Thursday. Kamal said the government has directed the Islamabad district administration to continue to pursue the dialogue process with the Lal Masjid and Jamia Hafsa administration. The Islamabad administration briefed him about the ongoing negotiations with the administration of Jamia Hafsa and Lal Masjid. The meeting decided that the use of force against the students of Jamia Hafsa would be the last option. The government will try its utmost not to allow the students of Jamia Hafsa to take law into their own hands. The meeting also decided to arrest the elements who are found involved in stopping or forcing the owners of video shops or CDs shops to shut their businesses. Sources said the National Crisis Management Cell set up in the Interior Ministry is persistently monitoring the matters related to Lal Masjid and Jamia Hafsa. 

 Reports on a day-to-day basis are being sent to President Pervez Musharraf, Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz and Interior Minister Aftab Ahmed Khan Sherpao in this respect. Meanwhile, hundreds of human rights activists rallied on Thursday to urge the government to act against the students of Jamia Hafsa who have launched “anti-vice” patrols in the Islamabad. Around 600 protesters chanted slogans calling upon the authorities to “curb the rise of extremist forces in the country that are promoting intolerance and violence,” an AFP photographer witnessed. The protest came a week after Burqa-clad girls from the Jamia Hafsa abducted a local woman accused of running a brothel. They released the women and her two relatives two days later, after making her read out a confession. Male students from Lal Masjid, meanwhile, have formed Taliban-style “Vice and Virtue” squads urging owners of DVD and music shops to shut their business. The students were “harassing and terrorising ordinary citizens in the name of Islam” and must be stopped, said a joint statement by the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan and a dozen non-governmental organisations. It also urged people to “rise against these extremist religious bigoted forces and secure the future of the present and future generations.” REFERENCE: Lal Masjid to set up ‘Shariat court’ today Friday, April 06, 2007 Lal Masjid on the warpath BY Muhammad Anis Saturday, April 07, 2007

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