Aitzaz: Forgetting Hazrat Umar for Hazmat Zardari

PKPolitics Discuss » Current Issues

Aitzaz: Forgetting Hazrat Umar for Hazmat Zardari

(39 posts)

ams
Member

Aitzaz 2007: If Hazrat Umar can be questioned, Why Not The President?
(http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=222116)

Aitzaz 2010: President can’t be questioned for he enjoys immunity!
(http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=222117)

Posted 2 years ago on 03 Feb 2010 4:50 #
Shaheen-e-Iqbal
Member

Two different statements by the same person who is justifying an act for one while refuting the same for another. Isn’t this blatant hypocrisy?

Posted 2 years ago on 03 Feb 2010 4:56 #
hariskhan
member

Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,

Someone put up the following as answer to this;

paida howay wakeel tu shaitan nay kaha
lo aaj say hum sahibay aolaad ho gaye

What this 'shair' says is true. The career of a 'lawyer' was made to allow legal trickery to save criminals, especially those who committed crimes of mass proportions.

However, we the people can struggle for its repeal. We can make this situation better by abiding by the law of the land.

It is our responsibility to make our political representatives repeal this law ASAP. The parliament of this nation has been given the power for it.

I wonder if there is ground to file a case against this law in the court of law, citing that this law creates multiple levels of people. Some have immunity, so they can't get punished even after their crime has been established, where-as the rest of the nation does not enjoy this immunity. After-all, ALL! people are equal in the eyes of the law, within this nation's borders, aren't they ?

Posted 2 years ago on 03 Feb 2010 5:22 #
Shaheen-e-Iqbal
Member

The current system of law and order in Pakistan is based on designs to enable support of criminals and prosecution of innocents!

Posted 2 years ago on 03 Feb 2010 5:27 #
hariskhan
member

Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,

We already know this. We have been repeating this fact for decades.

As a nation, when are we going to do something about it ?

Posted 2 years ago on 03 Feb 2010 5:28 #
sasherwani
Members

I have never ,in the history of Pakistan, seen someone fall from grace so much and so fast.

Aitezaz gained a lot of attention and fame during the lawyers movement to reinstate the chief justice. Everyone discovered him as a poetic national hero fighting for the freedom of law and justice in Pakistan.

Yet he sold his soul to the devil himself for merely a few pennys. Well ...any amount is just a few pennys when compared to the wealth of respect he gained in the recent yrs.

'Zardari has immunity against all the murders, assasinations, loots and corruptions he has performed - because he afterall is our beloved president'

Posted 2 years ago on 03 Feb 2010 6:04 #
Shaheen-e-Iqbal
Member

True, not only Aitezaz but anyone who will associate himself with zardari will fall from grace swiftly!

Posted 2 years ago on 03 Feb 2010 6:08 #
zingaro
Member

The nation trusted Aitezaz and gave him lot of respect. It was up to him to retain it or not .. I think Aitezaz chose the second option .

Posted 2 years ago on 03 Feb 2010 6:16 #
Beenai
Moderator

i am done Aitzaz.
as i have lost all the respect to him whatsoever i had before for him as a man of principle .

he is simply a man of opportunity .
who can defend a loser like Zardari just for political reasons ...:(

Posted 2 years ago on 03 Feb 2010 7:06 #
change_is_close
Member

here goes your symbol of 'movement for restoration of rule of law'

Posted 2 years ago on 03 Feb 2010 9:33 #
Beenai
Moderator

@changeinclose ,
we get to know ppl like that .
there is no such criteria out here ,u can judge ppl ,without getting them put into hot water .
or without getting cheated by them once .

Posted 2 years ago on 03 Feb 2010 9:46 #
LetsDoIt
Member

@hariskhan

you said it all in two lines...great

paida howay wakeel tu shaitan nay kaha
lo aaj say hum sahibay aolaad ho gaye

Posted 2 years ago on 03 Feb 2010 10:23 #
hariskhan
member

Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,

Wasn't it Aitzaz who sabotaged lawyer's movement at the last moment by not turning up at location, where lawyers were to stage a 'sit-in', the previous time they run the 'tehreek' ?

I have doubted Aitzaz's personality, credibility for a long time.

Posted 2 years ago on 03 Feb 2010 10:28 #
kash01
Member

President Zardari was imprisoned for 11 long years and the govenment of the day spent spent a huge amount to prove him guilty in court.However the government failed.If those charges couldnt be proved in courts in 11 long years then the chances of proving them now looks even more remote.It goes to president Zardari credit that he showed immense bravery and courage,kept his head high and never compomised on principles with his tormenters during his 11 long years imprisonmentI think Aitzaz Hasan has interpreted the constitution correctly...the president enjoys total immunity against criminal prosecution.

Posted 2 years ago on 03 Feb 2010 11:04 #
Anonymous

The reasons of all our problems is due to amalgamation of religion in to the affairs of the country and even its amalgamation in judicial matters as well as matters pertaining to our daily life dealings.

In the case against Musharraf in 2007, when he was immune to be tried under the law of the land, barrister Aitzaz Ahsan, Hamid Khan, Fakhruddin G Ibrahim and others of their class mercilessly attacked the president’s immunity by citing the example of Hazrat Umar (RA), who was questioned for his Abaya (long shirt), said that if the second Caliph of Islam could be questioned then why not the president of Pakistan. Not only that, Justice Ramday had said in his observations that the president was not above the law; the same was pressed by Aitzaz Ahsan too.

This hypocricy by Aitzaz is only because he tried to replace the law with religious citation in Musharraf’s case and today he does not want the religious citation to be considered as these do not suit him or Zardari.

By doing this, as also mentioned by ‘sasherwani’, Aitzaz has fallen himself from grace to gracelessness so quickly that there may not be an example of that. Aitazaz could have been in a better position today, had he not tried to take the leverage of uncalled-for (uncalled-for because courts have to try the cases in accordance with the law of the land only) religious citation in the case of 2007 against Musharrsaf.

Posted 2 years ago on 03 Feb 2010 11:45 #
PAKI.SECULAR
Blocked

adnak,

You are right as per aspirations of Quaid-e-Azam Pakistan should be a secular state not a religious state where minorities are treated as second class citizens !

Posted 2 years ago on 03 Feb 2010 11:47 #
change_is_close
Member

@kash01
dude, zardari was convicted in a swiss court. they had filed an appeal, the fate of which was about to be decided when NRO came to the rescue. check your facts!

also, we know how the establishment uses these cases against all the politicians. these cases are not registered to put these politicians in jail, but to blackmail them and use them for the establishment's and foreign powers' purpose. NRO is just an example of this; NS agreement w/ musharraf is another! so if the cases were NOT decided, that doesn't mean that zardari is an innocent man.

Posted 2 years ago on 03 Feb 2010 11:49 #
Anonymous

****.SECULAR

I wish people of Pakistan understand it quick. But mullas will try their best to keep the minds of people imprisoned under their domain for their personal gains.

Posted 2 years ago on 03 Feb 2010 11:51 #
aftab arif
Member

It is a real shame that Aitzaz has chosen this route and somebody on TV should ask him why the hypocrisy NOW.

Posted 2 years ago on 03 Feb 2010 11:55 #
change_is_close
Member

@adnak
"This hypocricy by Aitzaz is only because he tried to replace the law with religious citation in Musharraf’s case and today he does not want the religious citation to be considered as these do not suit him or Zardari."

not sure what you're trying to say here, but i guess you mean that b/c he 'dragged religion' into state affairs, that's why the hypocrisy. aitzaz's hypocrisy is NOT because of involving religion, but just because he's a hypocrite! he's just another one of the lot of secular, half-secular-half-islamist, and so-called islamist politicians of our great, great gora-gifted system.

i'm amazed that you're criticizing the concept of 'religion in state affairs' based on the action of someone who rejects the concept himself (a known secular).

Posted 2 years ago on 03 Feb 2010 11:59 #
hariskhan
member

Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,

@kash01: Are you human being ? Are you a paid worker of Zardari ?

(1) Musharraf took back cases from international courts right at the time of judgment

Why ? Those cases were never allowed to reach their natural conclusion.

(2) Cases against Mr. Zardari in local courts have never! come to their natural conclusion. Whenever a case was run against Mr. Zardari, his lawyers would put in applications to get stay, to bring about delays, to prolong the cases, rather than allow them to come to their natural conclusion

Why ?

That doesn't mean the cases are/were invalid. They just never reached their natural conclusion.

Posted 2 years ago on 03 Feb 2010 12:06 #
hariskhan
member

Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,

@****.SECULAR: You don't know Quaid-e-Azam if you claim he wanted a secular Pakistan. You haven't heard or read his countless speeches before and after partition. You don't know the people he lived around. Those who worked with him, those who joined his struggle. You are in-fact totally! aloof of reality.

A man is not! made out of one sentence. You are in-fact ignoring his whole life. You are denying him the credit for his achievement.

Posted 2 years ago on 03 Feb 2010 12:08 #
hariskhan
member

Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,

@adnak: @****.SECULAR: Nice try! You'r attempt at defocusing this discussion will INSHALLAH fail.

Admin / Moderator: Please remove ALL off-topic comments from this thread, even if they are my own.

Posted 2 years ago on 03 Feb 2010 12:10 #
hariskhan
member

Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,

@aftab: Janab, Shahid Masood sb. has already asked this of Mr. Aitzaz in his last program.

Posted 2 years ago on 03 Feb 2010 12:14 #
kash01
Member

@change_is_close

If the swiss court has already convicted the president then why do his opponents wants to reopen the swiss cases cases again?Anyway thanks for your reply and i will to check my facts.

Posted 2 years ago on 03 Feb 2010 12:47 #
kash01
Member

@hariskhan

"paid worker of Zardari"? LOL

Posted 2 years ago on 03 Feb 2010 12:57 #
change_is_close
Member

@kash01

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3125277.stm

btw, i thought that cinema business in pakistan was ruined, but apparently, the bamabino cinema has given zardari millions of dollars of profit! care to elaborate on the source of income, keeping in view the details of his swiss accounts presented in the supreme court?

Posted 2 years ago on 03 Feb 2010 13:17 #
semirza
Moderator

@all
Kindly stay on topic.
It is not a religious issue that clergy be dragged in, as Aitzaz referred to Islamic history in one case and in the other he says something completely different while both issues are more or less same; Aitzaz is the issue!

Posted 2 years ago on 03 Feb 2010 13:22 #
change_is_close
Member

@semirza

agreed - Aitzaz is the issue; that's the point i was trying to make.

aitzaz's hypocrisy is NOT because of involving religion, but just because he's a hypocrite!

Posted 2 years ago on 03 Feb 2010 16:45 #
gujjartalwar
Member

Come on people! Why are we so cynical? Let us try to argue politely. Why is it always all or nothing. Yes, you can differ with Aitizaz but he is trying to plead his side. No argument is final. His main thrust is to allow time for the Government to implement the decision. Sooner or later, immunity issue will end up before apex court and their decision will be the one that matters.

Posted 2 years ago on 03 Feb 2010 17:33 #
change_is_close
Member

yaar gujjar, we all realize that he's pleading the case, but that does not give him the right to do a 180 on his earlier statement, without any justification. if he has now come to believe that the narration regarding Hazrat Umar (RA) wasn't correct, then that's fine. but the problem here is that two years back, he said that president does not enjoy immunity, and now he's saying that the president does! yaar, pleading a case does not mean that morals don't apply to you!

Posted 2 years ago on 03 Feb 2010 17:54 #
hariskhan
member

Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,

I acknowledge the hypocrisy part of Mr. Aitzaz here.

Mr. Aitzaz is showing his true colours, rather killing his credibility in the masses by defending Mr. Zardari with wrong arguments.

Immunity issue is moot. Mr. Zardari's qualification to stand up for the office of 'President of Islamic Republic of Pakistan' can be challenged. There are clear indications that the one challenging it will win in the court of law, INSHALLAH.

Posted 2 years ago on 03 Feb 2010 17:54 #
skunkk
Member

Talk about twisting the words? Shame on all those here who are criticizing Aitzaz Ahsan and above all the establishment's pet dog that is the Jang group.

Aitzaz Ahsan never said that President cannot be questioned, however, what he did say was that he 'cannot be brought before court in a criminal proceeding'. Through out the lawyers movement he and all other lawyers as well as judges were very clear about presidential immunity for the dictator.

There is a difference between being 'prosecuted' and being 'questioned', kindly stop defaming people because of their political affiliations. Members of PPP are not like muslim leaguers or Jamaat e Islami who switch keep switching parties for national interest, they try to stay in the party and change it because they own it.

Posted 2 years ago on 03 Feb 2010 19:38 #
change_is_close
Member

http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=222116
"As reported by an English daily on May 30, 2007, Ch Aitzaz Ahsan argued that according to Article 248, the president and governor could not be made party in criminal cases, they could not be arrested; but if any of their acts was contrary to the law, they have no protection under Article 248 of the Constitution."

http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=222117
"Aitzaz Ahsan said that under Article 248(2) no criminal proceedings could be instituted or continued against the president or a governor in any court during his term of office."

"Aitzaz Ahsan never said that President cannot be questioned, however, what he did say was that he 'cannot be brought before court in a criminal proceeding'"

he has said that no proceedings can be instituted or continued - the discussion of questioning or presenting before the court comes after proceedings start. so if that can't happen, how can you question the president?

if you're not willing to accept the above references b/c they're from jang, then aitzaz should have the courage to sue jang.

Posted 2 years ago on 03 Feb 2010 19:48 #
skunkk
Member

And who are these MASSES everyone keeps on talking about? They vote for PPP or as was recently revealed in Mansehra, they choose Maulana Diesel over Nawaz Sharif, and Mansehra is the stronghold of PMLN. Masses are with the ruling coalition, which today includes PPP, ANP, MQM and JUI-F. sO IF OTHERS THINK THEY ARE REPRESENTATIVE OFS THE MASSES THEY SHOULD PROVE IT BY WINNING SOME ELECTIONS.

And as far as hypocrisy is concerned, a lot of people in Pakistan also thought that Chief Justice had indeed made amends, only to find that it was a sham.

Posted 2 years ago on 03 Feb 2010 19:50 #
skunkk
Member

Yeah sue jang? That would have been a good idea in an unbiased court but that is no longer the case. Again you are twisting Aitzaz's words, he had made it very clear along with all other lawyers during the lawyers movement that Musharraf cannot be prosecuted. He did not say questioning him in court of law,

Posted 2 years ago on 03 Feb 2010 19:53 #
change_is_close
Member

"but if any of their acts was contrary to the law, they have no protection under Article 248 of the Constitution."

that's what he said about musharraf! if there's NO protection, then why "Musharraf cannot be prosecuted"???

i think i'll let other subscribers decide if i'm twisting aitzaz's words!

Posted 2 years ago on 03 Feb 2010 19:58 #
Anonymous

Shunk

Your comments do carry weight but as I stated in my earlier post at 11:45, the problem started with the citation of the example of Hazrat Umar (RA) in Musharraf’s case although legally it was not relevant. Now people are asking him that why he is not citing the same example while expressing his views about immunity to Zardari.

Had he avoided the religious citing earlier, this controversy would not have risen now.

Posted 2 years ago on 03 Feb 2010 20:55 #
skunkk
Member

As reported by an English daily on May 30, 2007, Ch Aitzaz Ahsan argued that according to Article 248, the president and governor could not be made party in criminal cases, they could not be arrested; but if any of their acts was contrary to the law, they have no protection under Article 248 of the Constitution. On this, Justice Faqir Khokhar remarked that the position of the president and governor was different from that of prime minister and chief Minister. If Articles 48 and 248(1) were read together, Justice Khokhar said, it would be clear that they had protection in the Constitution.

Aitzaz replied, “They have no immunity in this case.” While giving the reference of Justice (Retd) Malik Qayyum’s judgment, he said that it was absolutely clear that any act contrary to the law did not make the president and governor invulnerable. Justice Ramday asked, “Why do you want to implicate the President in person, the federation is fulfilling your purpose?” Aitzaz replied the question is not immunity but is subject to judicial review.

Justice Ramday asked again, “What is the inevitable reason that you want trial on President?” Aitzaz replied the federation is not answerable for the act of the president and if the government cannot answer the questions then the referring authority would be answerable, and gave the reference of the incident of March 9.

Justice Ramday asked, “If these were the questions, which one the president would have to answer?” Aitzaz gave an argument that the Chief Justice of Pakistan in his petition had levelled serious allegations of mala fide against the president and the president was not above the law. He gave the reference of Amman Ullah vs the Federal Government case and said that it was accepted in this judgment that the president could be made party.

President is answerable for actions he does in the capacity of President! Even though that is subject to question, it is being made abundantly clear by Aitzaz Ahsan that when he does something in capacity of his position, in this case sending the reference, the Federation(government) answers on his behalf. However, as in the given situation federation refused the President ie his seat (the dictator specifically) is being referred. I'm sure Aitzaz Ahsan would give you the same explanation but I doubt that Ansar Abbasi or Jang or News should be answered to, they should be ignored.

Again, I would like to ask a lot of people talking about MASSES, why don't these masses vote PPP out. I mean PMLN lost in Mansehra, scared, it moved its lap dog Justice Khwaja Sharif to postpone the elections and a cherry on the top, Lahoris will be voting PML-N candidate Malik Pervaiz into NA, the brother of Malik Qayum(I'm sure you guys know him).

Posted 2 years ago on 03 Feb 2010 20:58 #