Our Announcements

Not Found

Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here.

Posts Tagged Musharraf

NAWAZ SHARIF AND PAKISTANI TALIBAN ALLIANCE: DANGER TO ASIAN & GLOBAL SECURITY

The Punjabi Taliban

Rana Sanullah and Muhammad Ahmed Ludhianvi of Sipah-e-Sabah

Punjab, with Lahore as its bustling capital, contains half of Pakistan’s population. The provincial government is in the hands of the conservative, mildly Islamist party of a former prime minister, Nawaz Sharif. In a speech in March his brother, Shahbaz Sharif, who is chief minister, pleaded with the Taliban to leave Punjab alone as his administration shared their ideology of keeping out “foreign dictation” (ie, Americans). Officials bristle at comparisons between Punjab, which is moderately well run, and the lawless tribal areas.

It is correct to say that there has been no territorial takeover by extremists in any part of the province, nor any enforcement of Islamic law. However, Punjab functions as an ideological nursery and recruiting ground for militants throughout the country. Distinctions between the Taliban in the north-west and older jihadi groups in Punjab have broken down. The federal government says Punjabi groups have been responsible for most of the big terrorist attacks in the province.

Punjab’s minister of law, Rana Sanaullah, went on the campaign trail in February with the reputed head of Sipah-e-Sahaba, for a by-election in the southern town of Jhang. The two rode through the streets in an open-top vehicle. The minister says that he was just trying to bring the group into the mainstream. Jhang is Sipah-e-Sahaba’s headquarters; the group makes little effort to hide its presence there.

Another outfit, Jaish-e-Mohammed, is based in Bahawalpur, also in southern Punjab, where it has a huge seminary. Former members of both organisations are integral parts of the Pakistani Taliban. Another group, Lashkar-e-Taiba, blamed for the devastating attack on Mumbai in 2008, also has Punjab as its home. “The Punjab government is not only complacent, there is a certain ambivalence in their attitude” towards extremists, says Arif Nizami, a political analyst based in Lahore. “They compete for the religious vote bank.”

images-21 

Punjab’s minister of law, Rana Sanaullah, went on the campaign trail in February with the reputed head of Sipah-e-Sahaba, for a by-election in the southern town of Jhang. The two rode through the streets in an open-top vehicle. The minister says that he was just trying to bring the group into the mainstream. Jhang is Sipah-e-Sahaba’s headquarters; the group makes little effort to hide its presence there.

Another outfit, Jaish-e-Mohammed, is based in Bahawalpur, also in southern Punjab, where it has a huge seminary. Former members of both organisations are integral parts of the Pakistani Taliban. Another group, Lashkar-e-Taiba, blamed for the devastating attack on Mumbai in 2008, also has Punjab as its home. “The Punjab government is not only complacent, there is a certain ambivalence in their attitude” towards extremists, says Arif Nizami, a political analyst based in Lahore. “They compete for the religious vote bank.”

Source

Jan

07
2011

Musharraf Terms Nawaz Sharif ‘Closet Taliban’

“I call Nawaz Sharif a closet Taliban. He’s a man who is — who has been — in contact with Taliban. He is a man who, today, appeases the clerics and mawlawis [Sunni Islamic scholars] — the extremists,” ‘Foreign Policy’ quoted Musharraf, as saying in an exclusive interview. “Moreover, he (Sharif) has tried [his hand at leadership as prime minister] twice in the past — and he has failed. Why are we giving him a third chance to destroy Pakistan”

Source

 
Mar
23
2010

Nawaz Sharif Brags About ‘Old Friendship’ With bin Laden

In a country of 175 million, replete with some 15 million politico-religious extremists, opportunities for a positive geopolitical paradigm shifts are rare. Punjab’s Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif, brother of Pakistan’s principal opposition figure Nawaz Sharif, tried to wreck this one by suggesting Taliban work out a “separate peace” with Punjab province.

“Cease targeting Punjab,” he said and focus on the other three provinces. Mercifully, there was a nationwide outcry against the wacky suggestion. Kayani summoned him and upbraided him in language he won’t soon forget. But this didn’t deter Nawaz Sharif from bragging about his “old friendship” with Osama bin Laden.

Source

 
Mar
22
2010

Research: Nawaz Sharif’s ties to Bin Laden

 

Daily Times of Pakistan reports – Sunday, March 21, 2010

Ex-ISI official says he arranged 5 meetings between Nawaz, Osama

LAHORE: Former Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) official Khalid Khawaja has claimed that he arranged five meetings in the past between former prime minister Nawaz Sharif and al Qaeda chief Osama Bin Laden on separate occasions.

In a recent interview with a private TV channel, Khawaja said Nawaz asked the al Qaeda chief to provide financial support for “development projects”.

“I still remember that Osama provided me funds that I handed over to then Punjab chief minister Nawaz to topple Benazir Bhutto’s government,” said Khawaja, adding that Nawaz met Osama thrice in Saudi Arabia alone. “Nawaz insisted that I arrange a direct meeting with Osama, which I did in Saudi Arabia,” he said. “Nawaz was looking for a Rs 500 million grant from Osama. Although Osama provided a comparatively smaller sum … he secured for Nawaz a meeting with the Saudi royal family.”

The former ISI official also claimed that Nawaz had met leaders of Islamic movements around the world.

Khawaja said following a “forced retirement”, he went straight to Afghanistan in 1987 and fought against the Soviet forces alongside Osama.

Daily Times of Pakistan reports Tuesday, September 08, 2009

Osama introduced Nawaz Sharif to Saudi royals: ex-ISI chief

LAHORE: Osama Bin Laden introduced Nawaz Sharif to the Saudi royal family in the late 1980s, and – during a meeting – the former prime minister had asked the Al Qaeda chief to provide employment to Pakistanis in Saudi Arabia, claimed former ISI chief Khalid Khwaja on Sunday. According to the Times of India, Khwaja – who was close to Nawaz in the late 1980s and early 1990s – made the claim in an interview. “During his first visit to Saudi Arabia as chief minister of Punjab in the late 1980s, no one from the royal family gave Nawaz importance,” he said. “Thereafter, on Nawaz’s request, Osama introduced him to the royal family,” said Khwaja. “A close aide of the Sharif family and I arranged at least five meetings between Nawaz and Osama in Saudi Arabia.”

While this happens to be not something new or unknown. Nawaz Sharif’s ties to Osama Bin Laden always bothered former Priminister late Benazir Bhutto, for which she had contacted George Bush Sr. in 1989. President Asif Ali Zardari had mentioned this in his interview to an American channel’s show “Meet the Press”

Former ISI chief Khalid Khwaja has confessed on various occasions to playing the role of a mediator for several meetings between Mr. Nawaz Sharif and Osama Bin Laden. On September 8th 2009 he again mentioned this on Ary News channel’s show 11th Hour.

A comprehensive timeline of Nawaz Sharif’s history and links to Osama Bin Laden is also mentioned with many other proofs and articles in a non-profit organization’s websitewww.historycommons.org:

Spring 1989: ISI and Bin Laden Allegedly Plot to Kill Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto
Hamid Gul, Nawaz Sharif, and Osama bin Laden conspire to assassinate Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. Husein Haqqani, a Pakistani journalist who claims to have been involved in the plot, will later say that ISI Director Hamid Gul contacted Osama bin Laden, who was then known to provide financial support to Afghan mujaheddin, to pay for a coup/assassination of Bhutto. Gul also brings Nawaz Sharif, then the governor of Punjab province and a rival of Bhutto, into the plot. Bin Laden agrees to provide $10 million on the condition that Sharif transforms Pakistan into a strict Islamic state, which Sharif accepts. [LEVY AND SCOTT-CLARK, 2007, PP. 193-194] Bhutto is not assassinated at this time, but bin Laden allegedly helps Sharif replace Bhutto one year later (see October 1990).

October 1990: Bin Laden Allegedly Helps Install Pakistani Leader Nawaz Sharif
In October 1990, Nawaz Sharif is running for election to replace Benazir Bhutto as the prime minister of Pakistan. According to a senior Pakistani intelligence source, bin Laden passes a considerable amount of money to Sharif and his party, since Sharif promises to introduce a hard-line Islamic government. Bin Laden has been supporting Sharif for several years. There is said to be a photograph of Sharif chatting with bin Laden. Sharif wins the election and while he does not introduce a hard-line Islamic government, his rule is more amenable to bin Laden’s interests than Bhutto’s had been. Sharif will stay in power until 1993, then will take over from Bhutto again in 1996 and rule for three more years. [REEVE, 1999, PP. 170-171] Former ISI official Khalid Khawaja, a self-proclaimed close friend of bin Laden, will later claim that Sharif and bin Laden had a relationship going back to when they first met face to face in the late 1980s. [ABC NEWS, 11/30/2007] There are also accounts of additional links between Sharif and bin Laden (see Spring 1989, Late 1996, and Between Late 1996 and Late 1998).

July 1993: Ramzi Yousef and KSM Attempt to Assassinate Pakistani Prime Minister
Ramzi Yousef and his uncle Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (KSM) unsuccessfully try to assassinate Behazir Bhutto, the leader of the opposition in Pakistan at the time. Yousef, with his friend Abdul Hakim Murad, plan to detonate a bomb near Bhutto’s home as she is leaving it. However, they are stopped by a police patrol. Yousef had hidden the bomb when the police approached, and after they left the bomb is accidentally set off, severely injuring him. [RESSA, 2003, PP. 25] KSM is in Pakistan at the time and will visit Yousef in the hospital, but his role in the bombing appears to be limited to funding it. [RESSA, 2003, PP. 25; GUARDIAN, 3/3/2003] Bhutto had been prime minister in Pakistan before and will return to power later in 1993 until 1996. She will later claim, “As a moderate, progressive, democratically elected woman prime minister of Pakistan, I was a threat to the fundamentalist zealots on multiple levels…” She claims they had “the support of sympathetic elements within Pakistan’s security apparatus,” a reference to the ISI intelligence agency. [SLATE, 9/21/2001] This same year, US agents uncover photographs showing KSM with close associates of previous Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, Bhutto’s main political enemy at the time. Presumably, this failed assassination will later give KSM and Yousef some political connection and cover with the political factions opposed to Bhutto (see Spring 1993). Sharif will serve as prime minister again from 1997 to 1999. [FINANCIAL TIMES, 2/15/2003]

Late 1996: Bin Laden Influences Election in Pakistan
Not long after bin Laden moves back to Afghanistan (see After May 18, 1996-September 1996), he tries to influence an election in Pakistan. Benazir Bhutto, Prime Minister of Pakistan, is running for reelection against Nawaz Sharif, who had been prime minister earlier in the 1990s. (Bin Laden apparently helped Sharif win in 1990 (see October 1990).) “According to Pakistani and British intelligence sources, bin Laden traveled into Pakistan to renew old acquaintances within the ISI, and also allegedly met or talked with” Sharif. Sharif wins the election. Bhutto will later claim that bin Laden used a variety of means to ensure her defeat and undermine her. She will mention one instance where bin Laden allegedly gave $10 million to some of her opponents. Journalist Simon Reeve will later point out that while Bhutto claims could seem self-serving, “her claims are supported by other Pakistani and Western intelligence sources.” [REEVE, 1999, PP. 188-189] It will later be reported that double agent Ali Mohamed told the FBI in 1999 that bin Laden gave Sharif $1 million at some point while Sharif was prime minister (see Between Late 1996 and Late 1998). There are also reports that bin Laden helped Sharif become prime minister in 1990 (see October 1990). While Sharif will not support the radical Islamists as much as they had hoped, they will have less conflict with him that they did with Bhutto. For instance, she assisted in the arrest of Ramzi Yousef (see February 7, 1995), who had attempted to assassinate her (see July 1993).

Between Late 1996 and Late 1998: Bin Laden Allegedly Pays $1 Million to Pakistani Prime Minister
According to FBI agent Jack Cloonan, in 1999, imprisoned double agent Ali Mohamed will tell Cloonan that he helped arrange a meeting between bin Laden and representatives of Nawaz Sharif, who is prime minister of Pakistan from 1990 through 1993 and again from 1996 to 1999. Mohamed claims that after the meeting he delivered $1 million to Sharif’s representatives as a tribute to Sharif for “not cracking down on the Taliban as it flourished in Afghanistan and influenced the Northwest Frontier Province in Pakistan.” It is unknown when this took place, but it is likely between late 1996, when the Taliban gain control over much of Afghanistan and Sharif as prime minister would have been in a position to crack down against them or not, and late 1998, when Mohamed is arrested in the US (see September 10, 1998). Cloonan will later say that he believes the information from Mohamed is accurate. [ABC NEWS, 11/30/2007] There have been other allegations that Sharif met bin Laden in 1996 and used his help to win the election for prime minister (see Late 1996), and also allegations that bin Laden helped Sharif win the election for prime minister in 1990 (see Late 1996).

For full timeline visit http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=nawaz_sharif

Source: Let Us Build Pakistan

Tags: 
Posted in Terrorism | No Comments »

 
Mar
17
2010

Musharraf terms Nawaz Sharif as ‘closet Taliban’

Sounding like a man hoping for a political comeback, former President Gen (r) Pervez Musharraf has said that he would return back to Pakistan if the people wanted him and if he believed he had enough support to make a contribution.

“If I have to just go there and join a political fray and be involved in accusations and counter-accusations … like most of the politicians are doing,” Musharraf said at news conference in Seattle on Sunday, adding, “I am not interested in that kind of politics.”Later, addressing an audience of several hundred largely Pakistani Americans in Bellevue, Musharraf termed Nawaz Sharif as ‘closet Taliban’, saying he would cause destruction of the country. But he denied the charges that corruption has make its way into the rank and file of Pak Army.

He said the Taliban brand of Islamic extremism posed a serious threat to the nation. “We need to ask ourselves, do we or don’t we want a Taliban/Al-Qaeda culture in Pakistan … because every action then flows from that decision.”

The Friends of Pakistan First sponsored Musharraf’s visit to Washington, and after the speech he answered wide-ranging questions on economy, India, feudalism and other topics. He also was asked about recent terrorist attacks that killed World Vision workers in Mansehra, to which he replied that the aid organisation should show resolve and not withdraw from Pakistan.

The visit came at a time when the Pakistani press has been speculating on whether he has a future political role in the country. In December, a Pakistan Muslim League leader, Sher Afgan Nizai, had said his party would welcome the former president’s return, which was likely to happen this winter. But later, an aide said Musharraf had no plans either to return or to rejoin the political fray. Musharraf, in his remarks at the news conference, boosted his governance. He called Pakistan a ‘failed state’ that was defaulting on debts when he came to power in 1999, and said he was able to increase freedom of the press, improve rights of minorities and stabilise the economy.

During his evening remarks, Musharraf said he lacked one thing – legitimacy domestically and internationally. He conceded he was labelled a dictator. He also spoke about the tense relationship between Pakistan and India.

At the news conference, Musharraf denied that Pakistan had supported terrorist activities in India, which he accused of ‘hyper reactions’ after the Mumbai attacks. He accused India of supporting terrorism in Pakistan, including Balochistan province.

But he said, “We must stop this confrontation between India and Pakistan,” and, “We must go for peace for the sake of the world, because the world considers us to be a nuclear flash point.”

Meanwhile, his visit prompted more than 70 protesters to gather early Sunday evening on a sidewalk outside the Westin Hotel in Bellevue where he spoke. One sign read “Dictator Not Welcome,” while others read, “Stand for Peace” and “Mister Commando is on the Run”.

Meanwhile, talking about Musharraf’s return, Ryan Crocker, former US ambassador to Pakistan, said, “Security would be a huge issue for Musharraf if he returns. So there would have to be some very solid understandings, backed up by the Army.”

Source

, , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Musharraf Won’t Be Charged, Pakistani Government Says

images-15Musharraf Won’t Be Charged, Pakistani Government Says

By ZARAR KHAN 04/22/13 01:04 PM ET EDT AP

 

 
 
 
 
 
Musharraf Wont Be Charged
 
 

ISLAMABAD — Pakistan’s caretaker government told the Supreme Court on Monday it will not file treason charges against former military ruler Pervez Musharraf but will leave the decision on that to the winner of the upcoming election.

The petitions before the Supreme Court alleging Musharraf committed treason while in power constitute just one of several legal challenges he is facing following his recent return to Pakistan from self-imposed exile.

The former military strongman was placed under house arrest over the weekend in connection with a different case, which involves his decision to fire senior judges while in power.

Musharraf’s detention was the latest in an array of setbacks he has faced since returning home last month with hopes of making a political comeback.

Lawyers have filed private petitions before the Supreme Court alleging Musharraf committed various treasonable offenses, including toppling a civilian government, suspending the constitution and declaring a state of emergency.

But according to Pakistan’s constitution, the government is the only one with authority to file treason charges against Musharraf.

Attorney General Irfan Qadir submitted a statement to the Supreme Court on Monday, saying caretaker officials have decided not to file treason charges because it was not part of their mandate.

The caretaker government should avoid controversial matters that are not reversible by the winner of the May 11 parliamentary election, Qadir said. Instead, he added, caretaker officials are focused on routine matters, such as ensuring security for the upcoming election.

However, Law Minister Ahmer Bilal Soofi indicated that caretaker officials would not defy the Supreme Court if the judges ordered the government to act.

“At present all the focus, the attention is on the election arrangement,” Soofi told reporters in Islamabad. “But we will be ready to proceed according to what the court asks us to do.”

The interim government took over last month and will hold power until a new government is formed after the vote.

At this point, it’s unclear how the next government will choose to proceed in the case of treason charges against Musharraf.

The front runner to become the next prime minister is Nawaz Sharif, who was toppled by Musharraf in a military coup when he was serving as premier in 1999.

Musharraf held power for nearly a decade until he was forced to step down in 2008 because of growing discontent with his rule. He returned despite Taliban death threats and an array of legal challenges.

But upon his homecoming, Musharraf encountered paltry levels of public support and was disqualified to run in the upcoming election because of his actions while in office.

Things got even worse last week, when Musharraf fled a court in the capital Islamabad to avoid arrest after a judge rejected his bail and ordered his detention. The arrest order was connected to Musharraf’s decision in 2007 to dismiss senior judges, including the chief justice of the Supreme Court, apparently out of concern that they would challenge his re-election as president.

Musharraf was eventually placed under house arrest at his heavily guarded compound on the outskirts of Islamabad until the next hearing on May 4.

____

Associated Press writer Asif Shahzad contributed to this report.

 

, , , , , ,

No Comments

Playing with fire

 

 Sunday, 21 Apr 2013
 
 

Humayun Gauhar
 
Humayun Gauhar 
 
 

Playing with fire

images-19 

 

Justice should be done but only under due process, with balance and equity

“The avaricious are complainants and judges too. Who to appoint counsel, whom to seek justice from?” asked our great poet Faiz Ahmed Faiz at another time, when he too was incarcerated for ‘treason’.

Banay hain ahle hawas muda’ee bhi munsif bhi

Kissay vakil keratin, kis say munsafi chahain?

Good that Faiz Sahib wasn’t also imprisoned for terrorism. Though those too were bad times but not as bad as today. Then Pakistanis had hope; today they are hopeless. Our systems are hurtling towards their natural metamorphosis. Better this way than by force for then they become martyrs and return as zombies to haunt us.

Last week Gen Musharraf appeared before a high court for placing certain judges under house arrest, which is a bailable offence. But the judge attached a terrorism charge to it, denied him bail and ordered police to arrest him. Many lawyers say that he cannot and it was another case of overstepping. Once denied bail it is up to the interior ministry to order police to arrest the accused. The police did not. Musharraf is hardly going to go looking for the police to arrest him.

Since the police didn’t arrest Musharraf, he went home. His security whisked him away because the anti-Musharraf lawyers there were in such a black mood that they feared they might attack him. It is security’s job not to be too careful and take things for granted. But a clearly partisan media that Musharraf the ‘dictator’ made independent of the state but not of the Big Business-Big Politics Combine started the ridiculous rumour that he had scampered. A paper we know well, otherwise fairly balanced called him a ‘runaway’ general. Why would Musharraf voluntarily return to face the music only to scamper? Why without getting the US-UK combine to get cases against him withdrawn or the Saudis to get him a pardon and whisk him away to one of those carbuncles they call ‘palaces’? He came knowing the knives were naked, the cases against him alive and the terrorists ready. The next day this same paper’s headline screamed: “The general submits to justice.” Musharraf returned voluntarily and embraced justice. I find it comical that he has been placed on the Exit Control List whereas he should have been placed on the Entry Control List and saved our powers a lot of confusion.

It was also comical that while Gen Musharraf was in the anti-terrorism court the real terrorists dressed like Dracula were beating up a boy outside. Probably he was pro-Musharraf. It is certainly everyone’s democratic right to protest peacefully but not to cause mayhem. This is what our flag bearers of democracy and liberalism are: if you agree with them you are good; if not they will throttle you. And they resent it when you call them ‘liberal fascists’. The classic definition of fascism is the use of the most progressive rhetoric to further the most retrogressive ends. If they were true democrats and liberals they would not take oaths under provisional constitutional orders to protect their jobs, join unelected cabinets and seek offices of any kind.

Perhaps our hapless powers didn’t seriously expect Musharraf to return and so were not prepared for it. There is no precedent for them to follow, no template to adopt. Caught in utter confusion they are thrashing around like beached whales, unwittingly putting Musharraf’s life at greater risk by dragging him around from home to court to some police establishment to an anti-terrorism court. No one is saying that real justice shouldn’t take its course; of course it must but only under due process with balance and equity. They have no right to present the general on a platter to terrorists and potential killers. If, God forbid, anything happens to Musharraf his blood will be on their hands. With police brandishing fearsome weapons milling around him in the name of security, do they know that there is not another assassin amongst them, like Salman Taseer’s police ‘bodyguard’ shot him in the back like a coward?

This coldblooded, self-confessed assassin has many supporters amongst the ‘lawyers’ who showered flower petals on him and still lionize him. Are terrorist lovers terrorists or is Musharraf who fought them both? These ‘lawyers’ beat up judges, contrary lawyers, journalists, cameramen, photographers and politicians. They are officers of the court but like serial contemnors they repeatedly bring the judiciary into contempt by their hooliganism. They obviously don’t know the law. Judges in an egalitarian state where blind justice prevails equitably and every citizen is equal before the law should have cancelled their licenses and imprisoned them for mayhem and causing grievous bodily harm – or are they scared of them? The chief justice took nary any notice. But I suppose some citizens are more equal then others, what? This state has become Bedlam.

The government instituted this particular case against Musharraf for placing certain judges under house arrest on the instructions of the judiciary. Some of the same judges are still in various courts, including the chief justice, whether they sit on the bench hearing it or not. There is such a thing as influence. Judges are the injured party, complainants and adjudicators all at the same time, as Faiz lamented. Can judges be judges in their own cause? Can anyone? Is it due process? Many of these judges legitimized the 1999 countercoup and took oath under Musharraf’s first PCO. Are they Lilly White clean or are they a danger to Snow White? A partisan judiciary and a partisan media are the last thing a real democracy needs. They become democracy’s death knell.

Try Musharraf certainly in all cases that have been filed against him, no one is saying otherwise, but try all his “aiders, abettors and collaborators” too and only under due process. If the state doesn’t display wisdom, balance and equity and justice doesn’t flow from the courts it will soon start flowing through the barrel of a gun toted either by the army with gloves off or terrorists who don’t know what gloves are. God help us then. No one wants that for then there will be grave injustices. The prosecutors and persecutors of today will become the prosecuted and persecuted of tomorrow. We have dug ourselves into a ditch yet we continue digging. If we don’t stop digging the ditch will become our grave.

If they think that this will prevent future army interventions they could unwittingly hasten it. Just as the lawyers felt humiliated by the treatment meted out to their chief and came out in protest, the army will also feel humiliated with Musharraf’s hounding and could come out in protest in its own way. I would love to hear today’s chatter in the barracks and the messes.

If putting judges under house arrest is terrorism, then what is giving bail to numerous terrorists who went on to commit heinous acts of terrorism? Lack of evidence forsooth such outdated and ineffective laws and procedures must be changed. This was the first point in the 2007 Proclamation of Emergency. Nobody in his right mind could disagree with it. The blood of all those killed by the terrorists is on the hands of those magistrates and judges that gave them bail. So too the responsibility for the pain of those maimed and the lives destroyed of the victims’ families.

They would also try Gen Musharraf for treason under Article 6 for the 2007 emergency but not for the 1999 countercoup which the Supreme Court legitimized and became “aiders, abettors and collaborators”, as did the then president, the initial cabinet, politicians, generals, bureaucrats, editors and journalists who supported it. But in an act of legal terrorism against our collective intelligence, the last parliament of geniuses indemnified them all. If the 1999 countercoup had not been legitimized there is no way the 2007 emergency could have happened. You cannot take cognizance of the effect and not the cause.

Which Article 6 are they going to try Musharraf under, the one that obtained in 1999 and 2007 or the new one changed by the last parliament? The first didn’t contain the word ‘abeyance’, the second one does. The conclusion seems sadly inescapable that the amendment was Musharraf specific for he didn’t impose martial law nor abrogated the constitution but only put some of its articles in abeyance for a time – for 42 days in 2007 during which time he retired from the army. Is this their devious gambit of trapping him while saving their own skins, those who sat in the late parliament courtesy the NRO and pardons? Our late parliament of geniuses should have known that laws are made for dispensing justice, not extracting revenge. If these geniuses think that by indemnifying them the “aiders, abettors and collaborators” of 1999 they are off the hook they have another thought coming. There is manmade justice on earth and Divine Justice perpetually going on in Heaven. The wheels of God grind slowly but they grind exceedingly fine. There is no way that Musharraf can be tried for ‘high treason’ only for the 2007 emergency and not for the 1999 countercoup along with all “aiders, abettors and collaborators”. That justice should not only be done but also be seen to be done is axiomatic; so too impartiality that should not only obtain but also seen to obtain.

The writer is a political analyst. He can be contacted athumayun.gauhar786@gmail.com

, , ,

No Comments

The Fate of General Musharraf

LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Unknown-24
 
 
 
 
 
The Fate of General Musharraf
 
 
 
The following message is being circulated on the Internet that reveals the truth about General Musharraf.
 
 
I am passing on the message because I agree with it. I hope that the political class will take note that they are next in line and that the segments of the media and the judiciary are complicit in actions and statements that direct the wrath of the nation from the person of Musharraf to the institution of the armed forces. No foreign power can hurt a country as long as the armed forces are effective in their statutory role of defending the country and enjoy overwhelming public support in that role. The military can and does impose its will when policy makers are acting treacherously. Musharraf made a lot of mistakes which come in the category of misjudgement. But Asif Zardari acted treacherously at least on two occasions. One, he put the nuclear deterrent of Pakistan on sale and publicly said that a 100 billion dollars would be acceptable. Israel publicly recommended that the USA accept the offer. Two, the Memo he sent through Hussain Haqqani to the USA offering a deal to accommodate US concerns on Pakistan’s nuclear deterrent in exchange for an overhaul of the military command in the name of ‘CIVILIAN CONTROL’, to make  Asif Zardari the like of Saddam Hussain and Hosni Mubarak as the ‘emperor’ of Pakistan on the lines Hasina Wajid is being entrenched by India in Bangladesh.
 
 
After Musharraf’s trial under Article 6 of the Constitution is over, it is the turn of Asif Zardari to face the music. The Indo-Zionist agents (some complicit, some implicit) in the media and the judiciary who are undermining the defence and security of Pakistan are under watch. The armed forces would not neglect their statutory duty for ever. + Usman Khalid+              
 
Musharraf is in custody today. A fall from grace indeed! This is natural justice for the mistakes he committed during his rule. 
 
 
I see the media, the politicians and the judiciary asking for his head — the same people whose heads should also roll if the Constitution is applied to them! This is the irony.
 
 
 
For the sake of putting on record the facts, I am writing this. Those who trust us will know the facts. Those who do not trust us can disagree.  
 
 
 
Musharraf is a patriot who chose his allies and advisers very badly. He was destroyed by Shaukat Aziz, Tariq Aziz, Altaf Hussian and the PML(Q) which were his allies. Today, they have all abandoned him. This happened as he chose the corrupt, the Qadianis, the enemies of Pakistan and opportunists as advisers. He may have been a brave soldier, but he was very naive in politics and poor in religion. He was still a patriotic Pakistani. We must be fair to him.
 
 
 
But his actions harmed Pakistan just as Zardari’s actions and CJ’s decisions are harming Pakistan today. Both Zardari and the CJ would also meet the same fate which Musharraf is facing today. 
 
 
 
Musharraf is guilty of following crimes: These are indeed major crimes that have had lasting consequences. 
 
 
 
1. NRO, which imposed upon hapless Pakistan this bunch of crooks in the name of democracy. Those who ruled Pakistan for the last five years were not only l corrupt; they are traitors ho opposed Pakistan at the time of its creation or have been recruited by hostile secret agencies since.  The same NRO is haunting him as he sits alone in a Police rest house in Islamabad .
 
 
 
2. He allowed the proliferation of electronic media without ensuring that control did not fall in foreign or hostile hands. The TV channels are now openly owned by corrupt media moguls who employ known subversives as anchors and get their objectives and propaganda line from foreign funded – mostly by Indo-Zionists – who work to destabilize Pakistan and sown seeds of discord and conflict. Now the same media is skinning him alive. 
 
 
 
3. He resurrected and reinvigorated the MQM, which had almost died in 90’s. Now they are a huge monster haunting Pakistan . 
 
 
 
4. He allowed the CIA to create TTP, offering Pakistan land to NATO unconditionally to supply weapons for terrorist and separatist groups like TTP, BLA and MQM. Thousands of “Raymond Davis” were allowed into Pakistan to wreck havoc with Pakistan ‘s security.
 
 
 
5. Destroying Pakistan ‘s ideology, Islamic values and moderation to patronise “western liberal secularism” in the name of ‘enlightened moderation’. This created extremism – both left and right – that has polarised the society and helped sustain murderous strife. Islamic values and faith has taken a serious hit in this period.
 
 
 
The above are just a few important ones.
 
 
 
But Musharraf is NOT guilty of following crimes:
 
 
 
1. He or the army did NOT kill Akbar Bugti. That is a lie. Bugti was killed as the roof of the cave he was hiding in, collapsed. Details of the incident have already been discussed many times.  
 
 
 
2. Musharraf did NOT kill Benazir Bhutto. That is a lie as well. BB was killed by the TTP. That has been confirmed by every investigation agency that looked into it.
 
 
 
3. The case of Lal Masjid is not so clear. It was confirmed that the TTP used it as a terrorist den. The use of force may have been excessive and opportunity for a negotiated resolution spurned recklessly. But the Khawarij rebellion – whatever its scale or form – has to be put down firmly with force. 
 
 
 
Also, remember this:
 
 
 
A case or FIR cannot be registered against the Pak army (the Army Chief or the President) or the Police on internal security duties or conducting an operation. This is abuse of law and a blatant violation of rules. Musharraf was the President just as Zardari is the President today. Are we registering FIR’s against Zardari or the PM for all the violence going on the country? NO! Then how can FIR be registered against Musharraf for Bugti, Benazir or Lal masjid? Would that not be Target killing through the judiciary?
 
 
 
He is a victim of his own bad decision, treacherous allies, and self-serving advisers and the ‘free media’ he is so proud of freeing.
 
 
 
The present rulers including bureaucrats and judges should learn a lesson. Their fate is also going to be the same to the extent as they act as tools of foreign intelligence to destabilise Pakistan today.
 
 
 
May Allah (swt) protect Pakistan and its people from the fitnah created by misuse of power, wealth and status, and arrogance of the undeserving.

, , , , ,

No Comments

Pakistan’s Musharraf lashes out on Facebook after arrest.Lives like an Emperor of Pakistan in Chak Shehzad

Pakistan’s Musharraf lashes out on Facebook after arrest

“These allegations are politically motivated, and I will fight them in the trial court, where the truth will eventually prevail,” Musharraf said in a message posted on his Facebook page Friday after he was arrested.
 
Pakistani police patrol in front of the residence of former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf after he was placed under house arrest in Islamabad.

AAMIR QURESHI / AFP/GETTY IMAGES

Pakistani police patrol in front of the residence of former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf after he was placed under house arrest in Islamabad.

Former Pakistani military ruler Pervez Musharraf criticized allegations against him as “politically motivated” Friday, following his arrest in a case involving his decision to fire senior judges while in power.

Musharraf was arrested a day after he made a dramatic escape from a court in Islamabad on Thursday to avoid being detained. Musharraf fled the Islamabad High Court in a speeding vehicle and holed up in his home on the outskirts of the city after a judge rejected his bail and ordered his arrest.

It was a new low in Musharraf’s troubled return from self-imposed exile last month to attempt a political comeback in the upcoming parliamentary election.

There were conflicting reports about how Musharraf was arrested Friday.

Police said they arrested Musharraf overnight from his home and delivered him to a magistrate in Islamabad on Friday morning. But the secretary general of Musharraf’s party, Mohammed Amjad, claimed the former military ruler surrendered himself before the magistrate.

Local TV video showed Musharraf entering the court surrounded by a heavy security detachment of police and paramilitary soldiers.

The magistrate instructed police to keep Musharraf in their custody and present him before an anti-terrorism court, said one of his lawyers, Malik Qamar Afzal.

Police then returned Musharraf to his home on the outskirts of Islamabad, where he is being held under house arrest, said police officer Mohammed Rafique.

Musharraf was expected to appear before an anti-terrorism court in Islamabad on Friday afternoon, said a court official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to reporters.

“These allegations are politically motivated, and I will fight them in the trial court, where the truth will eventually prevail,” Musharraf said in a message posted on his Facebook page Friday after he was arrested.

Musharraf’s arrest ended an awkward situation in which the former military ruler was being protected by security forces for hours while holed up in his house, but none of them made a move to detain him. They were likely awaiting orders from senior officials trying to figure out how to deal with the delicate situation.

Pakistan’s temporary caretaker government has been reluctant to wade into the controversy surrounding Musharraf since he returned last month, especially given his position as a former chief of the army, considered the most powerful institution in the country.

His return also presents complications for the current army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, who may have to decide whether to intervene to protect Musharraf, sparking a new conflict with the judiciary, or watch him be prosecuted. If Musharraf is sent to prison, it would be the first time an army chief has been put behind bars in the country’s 65-year history.

Musharraf seized control in a coup in 1999 and spent nearly a decade in power before being forced to step down in 2008. Despite legal challenges and Taliban death threats, he returned last month after four years in London and Dubai.

But he has received paltry public support, and earlier this week he was disqualified from running in the May 11 election because of his actions while in power. A court has also barred him from leaving the country.

The upcoming vote is historic because it will mark the first time in Pakistan that parliament has completed its full five-year term and handed over power in democratic elections. The country has experienced three military coups and constant political instability since it was founded in 1947.

Thursday’s case before the Islamabad High Court involved Musharraf’s decision to dismiss senior judges, including the chief justice of the Supreme Court, when he declared a state of emergency and suspended the constitution in 2007. He was concerned the judges would challenge his re-election as president, citing the growing Taliban insurgency in the country as justification for the state of emergency.

Musharraf’s crackdown on the judges outraged many Pakistanis and fueled a nationwide protest movement by lawyers that eventually resulted in him stepping down under threat of impeachment.

Before he returned to the country, Musharraf was granted pre-arrest bail in several cases, meaning he could not be arrested when he landed — a feature of Pakistan’s legal system.

An Islamabad High Court judge, Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui, rejected bail for Musharraf on Thursday and ordered his arrest, according to a copy of the court order.

Musharraf is facing a raft of other legal challenges, including allegations before the Supreme Court that he committed treason while in power. He has not formally been charged with treason because the government would have to file charges, which it has not done.

The Senate passed a unanimous resolution Friday demanding Musharraf be tried for treason, Pakistan state TV said.

Musharraf also faces legal charges in two other cases. One involves allegations that Musharraf didn’t provide adequate security to former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, who was killed in a gunfire and suicide attack in 2007. The other relates to the death of a nationalist leader in Baluchistan in 2006.

Given the legal challenges and Taliban threats against Musharraf, many experts have been left scratching their heads as to why he returned. Some have speculated he misjudged the level of public backing he would get, while others suggested he was simply homesick.

Associated Press writer Zarar Khan contributed to this report.

, , , ,

No Comments