http://thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=24173

Saturday, August 29, 2009
ISLAMABAD: Around 71 per cent Pakistanis want “harsh or mild punishment” to former president Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf for his unconstitutional steps on November 3, 2007, says a survey conducted by Gallup Pakistan.

“About 52 per cent favour harsh while 19 per cent support mild punishment to the former president, and 15 per cent favour no punishment and the remaining 14 per cent did not give a view,” says the survey launched by Gilani Research Foundation.

A nationally representative sample of men and women from across the country were asked “recently the Supreme Court has termed the enforcement of emergency on November 3, 2007 illegal”.

Some people believed Musharraf should be punished for this, while some believe he should not. When asked the punishment should be harsh, mild, or none, Majority, 52 per cent, said he (Musharraf) should be punished harshly and 19 per cent believed he should be given a mild punishment for this crime.

Fifteen per cent of the respondents did not support punishing Musharraf for enforcing emergency on November 3, 2007 while 14 per cent did not give any response. The survey findings also showed that while there are no significant differences in views on punishing Gen (retd) Musharraf across gender and age, there are notable differences across political affiliations.Those intending to vote for the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz, the MMA, the JUI and the ANP have higher support for punishing Musharraf, above 80 per cent, followed by the PPP voters and the PML-Q voters (around 60 per cent) and the support is the lowest amongst the MQM voters at only 19 per cent.

And see this clip too

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHp9n29YZ9s

Dear Sir, You think Pervez Musharraf is bad? Do you get a kick every time one of his political adversaries moves in for the kill?

Pakistan’s current leaders are hardly the democratic saviors they present themselves to be. False prophet: Pakistanis should pray former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif doesn’t return to power.

Today, the Zardari and her successor Sharif are presenting themselves as the saviors of Pakistan’s beleaguered democratic institutions. This begs the question: How real were these institutions before Musharraf came to power? Pakistan has yet to form modern political parties that cut across clan and kinship lines. Instead, the country has produced one dynastic party, Bhutto’s Pakistan People’s Party, and a collection of local bosses and landowners, some of which make up various fragments of the Pakistan Muslim League.

Moreover, as foreign-policy analyst Anatol Lieven has noted, “All civilian governments have been guilty of corruption, election rigging and the imprisonment or murder of political opponents, in some cases to a worse degree than the military administrations that followed.” Under the 10 years of civilian rule by Bhutto’s and Sharif’s constantly warring neofeudal parties, Pakistan was a democracy in name only. Far from building democratic institutions, their governments — bereft of competence and riddled with corruption — consistently undermined them. Bhutto was run out of the country for skimming millions off the top of government contracts; Sharif orchestrated the storming of the Supreme Court by street thugs as he was being tried for contempt. In an effort to efface their legacies, both former prime ministers are hoping to duck the legal charges that await them upon their return.

If only in contrast, the military fairly exudes bureaucratic efficiency and meritocracy. The Musharraf government has presided over Pakistan’s most successful economy, averaging 7 percent annual growth over the past five years. Compare this with the anemic 3 percent average in the 1990s under civilian rule. True, the military is diverting more state patronage into its own coffers these days. But arguably the military, instilled with a sense of loyalty to the state largely absent from civilian governments, remains more restrained in its corruption and graft. Indeed, Pakistani generals probably do more to circulate patronage to the lower ranks than their bureaucratic counterparts.

Think Again

your suggestion in # 61 reminded me of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), a court-like body assembled in South Africa after the abolition of apartheid. Anyone who felt that
he or she was a victim of its violence was invited to come forward and be heard. Perpetrators of violence could also give testimony and request amnesty from prosecution.

Despite some flaws, it is generally (although not universally) thought to have been successful.

the TRC was chaired by Desmond Mpilo Tutu , a South African cleric and activist who rose to worldwide fame during the 1980s as an opponent of apartheid.

other notable member was Wynand Malan, he was critical of P.W. Botha for being too timid in his constitutional reforms in the 1980s and was also critical of the state of emergency implemented
by Botha.

so even these two were previously known critics of the racist government, and might have suffered under the racist government for being out spoken, these people were on the TRC, anyone could
have called it “conflict of interests” or like you mentioned the victim becoming the jury,

but it was their actions that brought them their credibility, despite being open critics of the apartheid government.

recently the President of Hounduras was sent into exile after SC verdict, democratic and human rights watchdogs raised their voice against the verdict, how come not even a single organization, country or its head or even mush’s former allies have not raised this point of court being biased.?

you may disagree and i could also be wrong but the general impression is the courts are not being biased

comming back to your idea, National Reconciliation Ordinance was (somewhat) close to what you are proposing, but it was clear that NRO is being used to clear the way, why not ask people to come and defend themselves? if they are innocent they shouldnt fret,

NRO beneficiaries include:

MQM
Asif Ali Zardari
Hakim Ali Zardari
Altaf Hussain
Rehman Malik
Hussain Haqqani
Aftab Sherpao
Nawaz Khokhar
Salman Farooqi
Siraj Shamsuddin
Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali
Pakistan ARMY generals
Bureaucrats
Syed Muhammad Ali Shah (piyar se:Shah Sahab)
Syed Bilal Uddin
Chaudhary Shujad Hussein
Maulana Fazl ur Rehman

again if we do make such a commission, will the victims agree to it, i mean like , i know people who directly or indirectly knew Akabr bughti, he was a good man in the begining, but at the time of his
death he was working against the state, but rather than addressing his demands, mush ran out patience and killed him, only to make the Baloch people firm in their belief that the State pakistan is not concerned about them, will just the admittance of mush’s guilt be enough to convince them? they would want something concrete?

the same goes for Afia sidiqui and the missing persons, will the be contented to hear what they already know……..will listening it from Mush that he is responsible for the abduction of their loved ones, how will it make them feel better, ?

The case being talked about,

ZAB’s Capital punishment was based on circumstantial eveidence, no court in the world can do that.

Mush’s case is different,he declared emergency and took extra constitutional steps, its all on the record, he had it validated by the court for its legal aspects, and he had to get it approved by the people(like his bogus referandum in 2002, but still it was enough ) or by the people ’s representatives (like he appoved his PCO in 2002-03) to get full cover

this time he did nt get it approved by the people or the parilment, this is enough to summon him,
there is no circumstantial eveidence, or no” inconclusive evidence” or any thing that casts / ambiguity doubt over the course of events , atleast this case is simple enough

dont worry mush wont get death for this

when i heard about the priviatization of P Steel Mills and the price at which it was sold at (the price was less than what the land would have cost, let alone the structure on it),

i said to myself “this has to be the lowest point in pak history, our natioanl assets are being sold for peanuts (the Rosevelt Hotel in USA , owned by PIA was also on the cards then along with others) that there is absolutly no one to question these thieves ?( the selling of Pakistan Steel Mills to a group including Arif Habib, former client and friend of PM Shaukat Aziz)” knowing how much this could hurt our economy

I hadnt even paid attention to who was CJP what is his name….considering any XYZ CJ it may be he will be a rubber stamp for mush,

on 9 march when CJP was suspended by mush , it was then i realized, there is someone who can raise voice against the dictator of the time, CJP was the prefect CJ for mush but CJP disagreed, and the competent man CJP, turned into a anti state element overnight, (am i watching “transformers”?)

this is the only reason i support CJP, belive me he is not my relative or something

and the charge brought agaisnt CJP of being pro-mullah extremist is also baseless, remember it was CJP who ruled agaisnt the Hasba Bill, hasba bill which was sort of extreme misinterpretation of Islam, brought on by the MMA in NWFP

(ruling:”The governor of the province of NWFP may not assent to the Hasba bill in its present form,” Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, head of a panel of nine judges, told the court before listing several clauses in the bill deemed unconstitutional.)

again like you (Nazia) have mentioned above that mush when summoned was given the facility to appear in person or via a lawyer , mush supporters may not think its enough, ok , it s up to them

I had my motivation to support CJP, lets see if musharrf has generated enough motivation amoung his supporter

PS.

Aftab @ 61 and 52 and 59
please excuse me as it is day time, i’ll share my views with you ASAP, hope you understand…..

See, now we are talking!

I will tell you what, as a principle the judges sitting on a bench with a case must not ever be a party - it’s just not done. Unfortunately, they have become a pary and thus stand disqualified to hear this case even partially. No way out - I am sorry, however this is the way it is.

See, what I suspect is that this is just the proverbial ‘tip of the iceberg’. This thing is explosive, they have touched it and it has all the ingredients of hurting the state as never before and never as severely. Do you know where would this lead us to ultimately? Yes, the NRO and oaths under PCOs irrespective of how many times and who all (the CJ is not immunized either!), and, and, etc.

Solution. (he! he! he! - talk of hubris!).

Yours faithfully has suggested already long time ago, right here, all that we need is an independant commission comprising those retired judges of our superior judiciary who have an absolute clean record of their professional competence as well as neutrality. This should not be difficult at all, since there are many of them around and their records are available and their standing is solid and beyond any disputes and blame of partisanship. Let our elected representatives appoint this commission and once appointed can not be fired for a specified period of time. Let them be our saviour and let them decide how to go about cleansing all our mess. Give them the power to even to grant pardon to those established guilty with this absolute condition of admission of guilt & request for pardon - publically.

This will do the job and only then we can be certain about justice as well as free of our national guilt and trauma. This will also help us emerge as a united people, failing now is going to haunt us to our ultimate destruction. No way out, I am afraid.

now to # 52

your point is valid regarding the “conflict of interests” in the case,

one resolution would be some other judges take over the case, then again they too would have to be appointed by the SC, and again we may hear the about the “conflict of interests”, thanks to Mush, right now all the judges are divided into loyal to Mush(ones who took oath under PCO) and loyal to CJP ones who did not took oath under PCO) so in either case one of the party will complain about the composition of bench hearing the case.

i know it wont make a difference what we decide, but what do you think could be the solution to this problem? if we make half PCO and half non-PCS judges, we could have a split vote (50-50 stalemate) as if the PCO judges do rule against MUsh, their existance in the SC is under danger again a “conflict of interests”

inviting third party or foriegn judges would make us Pakistanis a laughing stock,(i doubt if we arent already, but atleast lets not rub salt into our injuries)

I am running late for my office, l”ll expalin later why it should this not be a big issue in this case,

PS.
if i remember correctly you are in UK, so the chances are that i might already have explained the other half by the time you wake up, cheers !

apologies for ignoring comment # 52, the reason is that as you can see throughout this and other conversations with hassan it goes like this
—————————–
Hassan: XYZ is good
Arias; how?
H: altaf hussain bahi ne bhi keh dia hai
A: keh dia , but how?
H: Khalid bahi ne bhi keh dia hai
A: bilqul keh dia , but how?
H: Saeed Rashid bahi ne bhi keh dia hai
A: jis marzi ne kaha ho, but how?
H: I have already answered your answers many times, see my previous replies
A: ? (while looking out the window)
———————————

so most of the time Hassan is saying the same thing in different words, offering no logic or reason at all, so i didnt bother to read @ 52 thinking it would be empty like hassan’s comments, and given our “cordial” relations i wasnt expecting anything at all but, like it is said “panchoon unglian brabar nahi hotin”

I hope you get my point,

Leaving our political views aside, I wish that you had read what I had to say above @ # 52 and did some serious thinking about what I am trying to say here. Tyrany is just that and has different faces, sometimes back it claimed “heavey mandates” and this time around it’s so called “free” judiciary and media. Freedom just can not mean free to do what you like at your whims. Absolute impartiality of the court / bench must be pre requisite for justice; and bunch of 14 judges who all were parties in a conflict with Musharraf just can not stay impartial, this is mockery of justice.