A Sad Day for Pakistan

The miserable FerozK writes "If a parliament, elected or appointed, cannot make laws under the threat of a gun, why did MMA support the passage of this law? Why did the parliamentarians not resign in protest? Were their perks of power too important?"

Don't try to support your "dead" point, it was dismantled completely. Like I said and as you are trying to waffle around without disproving what I said, a legislature under the Military gun cannot make amendments to the constitution, amendments assume democracy and the will of the people. What the MMA did or didn't do, resign or not resign does not disprove or negate this point one bit. If the amendment was illegal, as a result of this, then the job to check this excess of the legislature and executive falls on the SC. Since the SC is not independant and under the gun of the dictatorship as well it did the same thing the legislature did, appease the dictator. That was my point and it is a standing point, a slam dunk point. Second, issue alive or not, if the 17th Amendment (regardless of its illegality) is not logically supporting a man in uniform running for office (and it does not) then when the SC tries to ignore judgment on it and that lack of judgment benefits the dictator, then the SC is not independant, it is subservient to the dictator and has not done its job.

Regarding me "hating" you. I don't hate you personally. I don't even know you, I hate you ideas of bowing to the colonials and the Americans, and loving those who oppress humanity, and I hate your idea of calling for the US elite to construct continent wide prisons to imprison Muslims, and your idea of giving legitimacy to this farce "war on terror" as if it is something real. Give up your support of colonizers and enslavers of humanity and we can be friends. I cannot be friends with enemies of humanity....

"The most virulent closet jihadi is YLH followed by tahmed."

Ofcourse anyone who does not agree with Indian hogwash and Hindu fascism is automatically a closet jihadi. Proud to be one.

arjun-m,

Twisting what I am saying will hardly change known facts of history. My advice: stick to what I am actually saying instead of second guessing ...


jayaprakash thackerey various#

Please revert to post 27.

zeemax's willingness to behead people doesn't translate into an ability to do so.

If just saying stuff gave someone the power to actually make it happen, the pakis have been saying kashmir banega pakiland for 60 years now...

barking dogs seldom bite...and in this particular case, the dog has no teeth and is on a leash..

Laddu,

As 4 Zeemax saying '..but I'll behead you in a jiffy', my friend, pl dont take his words literally. He cant even behead a murgi...he'd be a great company 4 for weeknd outings, esp mujra types.

As for Hamid2, he's tickler for all chowkies. He's doing the job of tickling us 4 gratis. We must be thankful 2 him.

#84 Posted by MantoLives on September 30, 2007 12:39:49 am


I know facts are not your forte, but the Deobandi Mullahs in Waziristan who have risen up against Pakistan


So Gandhi's people made the paki army surrender in 71 and gandhi's people are making the paki army surrender en masse without firing a shot today?

laddu 102

That was evident all along.

I ahve been on chowk from its very beginning and the only pakistani I have seen with humanistic element is hamidm, he used to be called simple Hamid and he had a friend "tehsin".

There was bilal ahmed who passed away.

The most virulent closet jihadi is YLH followed by tahmed.


Hamidm,

If you are still in contact with tehsin tell him that I remember him foldly.

Re: # 83

"Laddu,

I will anytime take hamidm for a luxurious drink & dinner, but I'll behead you in a jiffy. Idolators are scum. Hamidm is not an idolator.

The blowing up of that rock carving in Swat should be a lesson. We hate idolaters and will kill them all !!!"

We are ready for you!!!

Re: # 86

I think the mask of 'moderation' on Pakistani muslims is off and the evilness of Islamic indoctrination is clear on this site. Every hindu idolator who reads the interacts and justifications offered by 'moderate' muslims for the genocide of my idolator fore fathers and present day terrorism against hindu idolators - whether in the form of attack on the symbols like the statute of Buddha or attack on temples or on innocent civilians through terrorist bombings - should see the carefully inculcated perversity and insensitivity towards human values from their childhoods in their houses and mosques .

In contradistinction to all these so called 'moderates' Masadi Saheb comes out as a far superior humanist.

#97 jay thakeray: i would kick your lying butt before i sent an email to you, you freak.

#96 zeemax: The re-instatement of the CJ was a step in the right direction, and that remains as true today as it was on July 20.

If one is serious about the "rule of law", then one must accept the judgement even if one disagrees with it, and seek other means (political, including the right to peaceful demonstration to signal protest) to resolve the problem. So, what are the options?

1. "guns to match guns", as you say. That is an unworkable option: first, musharraf has overwhelming resources available to him; second, even if it works, there is no guarantee that one dictator will not be simply replaced by another dicatator.

2. Defeat of musharraf in elections, even if twisted to his advantage as he is currently bent on doing: This would call for politicians (including from the king's party) in the current national assembly unite to defeat musharraf anyway. Also unrealistic.

3. Post-election overthrow of musharraf through civil unrest: possible. But even this may not succeed for the same reason as 2 - with characterless politicians, notably PPP and MMA, falling over one another to make power-sharing "deals" with musharraf.

4. Post-election erosion of musharraf's power by the new prime minister: possible. But too many unknowns.

So who the hell knows. One can only pray that the brave people of Pakistan fighting on the streets for what is undoubtedly the right cause - the basic rights of Pakistanis - are spared further bloodshed.

Legality of pak constitution amendments,

In pakistan there is no concept of limits to what can be amended in the constitution. In india, way back in the 70s, there was a case called Keshavanand Bharati case where the supremecourt ruled that there are limits to amendment to teh constitution. They did not define what are the limits, but said that there are something called the "basic structure of teh constitution" which cannot be altered.

In the case of pakistan there is no such notion, there is only the "doctrine of necessity" up help by teh supreme court several times.

It is total bs that that teh court can question the validity of the amnedment, against what, againt some notion of basic structure, notion of doctrine of necessity..

the court can at most look at the amendment on procedural grounds, and nothing else.

long live mushy...TNT jindabad...jinnah zindabad,

Re: masadi # 65

Masadi, you are a disappoinment. Your insults are getting stale...you need to find new and better ones! I know that you can do it! I have unlimited faith in your ability to insult people! Give it a try! :)

Thanks for stating the question and answering it!

If a parliament, elected or appointed, cannot make laws under the threat of a gun, why did MMA support the passage of this law? Why did the parliamentarians not resign in protest? Were their perks of power too important?

This parliament was in league with Musharraf and now, having been denied their share in power, they want the courts to undo their bargain of political greed and its resultant stupidity.

You are right; amendments cannot be tailor made for one person, but this is just what this parliament did when it passed the 17 Amendment in 2002. From 2002 to 2004 and from then to today, it was silent? Why?

I agree, with you on the interpretation of the 17 Amendment, but it still does not absolve the role of the parliament and that was the question to Mantolives.

Justice Rana Bhagwandas talked about his dissent on the basis of "conscience", where was the conscience of the parliament in passing a law it had no right to pass in the first place?

Read the 17 Amendment and you will realize that it copies the (whole) LFO into the constitution and as to what Aitzaz Ahsan said, he was debating the legality of the law whereas the court was debating the reality of the law in its decisions. What was the choice before the court? Musharraf for another 5 years or martial law? Political prudence or judicial recklessness?

This is what I said in my earlier posts, but you choose to ignore it in your personal hatred of me. The issue is not dead; if it can be proven that parliament was not competent to pass the 17 Amendment, as you say, then the duality of the two offices can still be ruled against. The issue is, whether the parliament had the procedural right to do such, and the answer is it did not, beacause in doing so, it significantly changed the nature of the constitution.

As to the interpretation of the constitution, the court can be faulted there, but had it done so and called the 17 Amendment illegal, who have amended the amendment itself?

If this parliament was not the proper authority to pass the 17 Amendment in the first place, as it was not, then how come it can be judged as the right authority to repeal it under the court's judgement?

Aitzaz Ahsan was not arguing the competence of the parliament in the passage of the 17 Amendment, whereas the court was saying it was the competence of the parliament that allowed for the eventuality of Musharraf contesting elections in uniform.

Now, by all means feel free to insult me all the names you can think of, while not answering any of my questions as your past habits suggest. Please feel free to twist my words and quote me out of context and please do not hesitate to sink to the lowest levels of maturity to make your venom known against me. While you are foaming at the mouth, please do not refrain from repeating your socialist-religious mantra about the US elites and the glories of socialism and the joys of poverty.

Ciao

P.S.: Make sure you are wearing a bip, when you foam at the mouth, I would not like your clothes to be soiled!

tahmed 94,

Yes, I did receive your email at the mossad address. You are such a simpleton.

regards

Jay

tahmed32, now you have no choice but to agree with me.

So you were jubilant over 20 July? You thought democracy and rule of people is evident?

How wrong you were. The only rule of people will come with guns to match the guns on the other side. There's no other way. And, Alhamdo-Lillah, that is well on its way.

The site below provides some pictures of lawyers being attacked yesterday by police in uniform as well as in civilian clothes.

http://www.pakistanuncut.com/