'Fugitive' Musharraf will be arrested on arrival [in Pakistan]: prosecutor
Former President Pervez Musharraf will be arrested on returning to Pakistan as an anti-terrorism court has declared him a "proclaimed offender" or a fugitive, a top prosecutor said today.
Musharraf is a "proclaimed offender" who will be arrested on his arrival in the country and there is no need of any warrant for making the arrest, Federal Investigation Agency prosecutor Chaudhry Zulfiqar Ali told reporters.
The former military ruler, currently living in Dubai and London in self-exile, has said he plans to return to the country on January 25 or 27 to lead his All Pakistan Muslim League (APML) party.
Musharraf was declared a fugitive last year by the Rawalpindi-based court conducting the trial of those charged with involvement in the December 2007 assassination of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto.
http://business-standard.com/india/news/fugitive-musharraf-will-be-arrestedarrival-prosecutor/154730/on
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)would have been one of our greatest allies for peace in that part of the world , Dubai and London, Hmmmm aren't they part of the West hmmmm.
Thaddeus Kosciuszko
(307 posts)We lost one during the Egyptian Arab Spring too. Now, the Muslim Brotherhood appears to be gaining control and will likely convert Egypt into a jihadist state, (a.k.a., the devil that we don't know).
It's too early to tell which way Libya will turn; however, the Muslim Brotherhood is odds-on favorite to win the June elections.
http://www.clevelandjewishnews.com/news/national_world/article_37c4ebd8-37f2-11e1-a506-0019bb2963f4.html
TheWraith
(24,331 posts)Completely aside from the fact that you're recycling right-wing spin points about how Egypt is suddenly going to go terrorist... Either you can complain that the US supports dictators, or you can complain about the post-dictator democracies. You can't do both.
Thaddeus Kosciuszko
(307 posts)your accusation (recycling right-wing spin points) would be valid. But now, some policy agendas have been put on the table that we can evaluate.
I would prefer to be wrong on this one; but when the head of the ruling party declares that "we will take legal action against the peace treaty with the Zionist entity," I am compelled to consider the alternative to peace.
karynnj
(59,502 posts)1) Do you think that the US COULD have kept Mubarak in power against the people's uprising?
2) If yes, do you think they should have, given that it would be a complete repudiation of all Obama said in his Cairo speech and put the US on the side of a dictator, who to stay in power would have had to repress his people.
Do you believe that democracy is good only if we like the results? Don't you think it better to try to push the Muslim Brotherhood to disavow its more extreme positions?
Thaddeus Kosciuszko
(307 posts)1) Yes, but I would not have supported it; nor would it have been worth the costs of lives and resources.
2) See above.
3) Democracy = tyranny of the majority, when the inalieanable rights of human beings are not recognized and protected.
At some point we must realize that we cannot save or police the world. The ME has been screwed up since the Ottoman Empire was defeated, which resulted in the ME being subdivided into "unnatural" states by the UK and France, early in the last century. Unfortunately, the historical effects of these types of actions may not be known for decades or centuries later...and it is still "unnatural."
We didn't create the mess in the ME, but we do have to live with it.
hay rick
(7,607 posts)I know, military ruler of the 6th largest country in the world was a trick question.
Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)
Post removed
RC
(25,592 posts)Our Constitution has been reinstated and is in full force.
Especially the part in Section 8 about providing for the "... general welfare", and the adhering to the wording and intent of the Bill of Rights.
I won't be holding my breath.
when people want the government to do things that it wasn't designed to (order everyone to buy health insurance) of course they are going to take away your liberties. The government that can provide you with anything, can take anything away.
As more and more government services are demanded, they will restrict rights.
ret5hd
(20,491 posts):eyeroll:
christx30
(6,241 posts)Finland being described, as the United States has, as the beacon of freedom for the world.
And I would rather have freedom than being ordered to buy a product from a private company, no matter how bad the problem is that the "solution" is suppsed to fix.
Just remember the next time people bitch about security at the airports, or the loss of our civil rights.
It has been pointed out that... the National Security of Act of 1947-8 was the beginning of our rights being taken away, I would agree generally, except from the beginning of our "nation", peoples rights were continously under attack, both literally and figuratively.
It has also been pointed out that the "founders" were loathed to include the first 10 Admendments (aka "Bill of Rights, which would have been easily 16 Amendments were it not for the corporatistas, Landed Gentry's, Slave Holders etc.. among them)
I'm no fan of the Health Care legislation that is nothing less than a boondoggle for Big Pharma and Insurance Companies, but certainly not a handout to the People.
I certainly agree that there should NOT be a mandate to buy in. I would argue that principle across the board in other areas.
Still, the Meme does seem to work as a uesful tool to throw around as a political attack, like so many other false assertions designed to obscure the facts and actual issues at hand.
RUMMYisFROSTED
(30,749 posts)
freshwest
(53,661 posts)2banon
(7,321 posts)What took them so long?
RomeStatute
(2 posts)I read this "hidden" thing on here. It said this:
Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon to be tried in absentia for the genocide of the Vietnamese people.
Ronald Reagan to be tried in absentia for war crimes and the crime of aggression.
George HW Bush, Bill Clinton and George W Bush to be tried for war crimes and the crime of aggression.
Barack Obama to be tried for war crimes.
Why? The Rome Statute says this about war crimes (Article 8):
For the purpose of this Statute, "war crimes" means:
(a) Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention:
(i) Wilful killing;
(ii) Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments;
(iii) Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health;
(iv) Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;
(v) Compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power;
(vi) Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial;
(vii) Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement;
(viii) Taking of hostages.
How are Bagram and Guantanamo not unlawful confinement, particularly when he said he would keep people there even if a military commission acquitted them. What about this article: http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2011/04/09/bagram-and-beyond-new-revelations-about-secret-us-torture-prisons-in-afghanistan/
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)
