Pakistan issues arrest warrant for Pervez Musharraf

[CDNBear]

Pakistan issues arrest warrant for Pervez Musharraf


A Pakistani anti-terrorism court has issued an arrest warrant for former military ruler Pervez Musharraf over the assassination of opposition leader Benazir Bhutto in 2007.



Prosecutors say he was aware of Taliban plans to target her but did not act to prevent her murder in Rawalpindi.
They accuse him of failing to provide adequate security for the former PM.


Mr Musharraf - who lives in self-imposed exile in London - denies the allegations.


His spokesman, Fawad Chaudhry, said Mr Musharraf had no intention of returning to Pakistan for the hearing.


"There is no basis for the case. This is a politically motivated court ruling and the [former] president has no intention of complying."
Ms Bhutto was killed while in a gun and suicide attack while travelling in an election motorcade in the city of Rawalpindi in December 2007.


She was twice prime minister of Pakistan, from 1988 to 1990, and from 1993 to 1996...

Hmmm, a legitimate court actually files a legitimate warrant, and no one on the left says "boo" about Musharraf not complying.

Bush has a speaking engagement canceled, and he's dodging a trumped up document filed with/by no legitimate court?

Interesting developments in moral relativism.

 

[gerryh]

I haven't heard about it, and considering there is no link supplied, for all I know you pulled this out of your ass in retaliation for the attack on your war mongering buddy.

IF they have issued a warrant for him, then I would say that Pakistan should be seeking his extradition from England. Now, with that said, if England refuses.............. the precedent has already been set as to what a country can do in that situation.

 

[CDNBear]

I haven't heard about it, and considering there is no link supplied...

My bad...

BBC News - Pakistan issues arrest warrant for Pervez Musharraf

...for all I know you pulled this out of your ass...

It's big, my ass that is, but it doesn't have an internet connection.

...in retaliation for the attack on your war mongering buddy.

Which buddy would that be little guy?

IF they have issued a warrant for him, then I would say that Pakistan should be seeking his extradition from England. Now, with that said, if England refuses.............. the president has already been set as to what a country can do in that situation.

Which president? And has he been indicted by a legitimate court of law?

How your child molester protecting Pope doing these days?

 

[Unforgiven]

Hmmm, a legitimate court actually files a legitimate warrant, and no one on the left says "boo" about Musharraf not complying.

Bush has a speaking engagement canceled, and he's dodging a trumped up document filed with/by no legitimate court?

Interesting developments in moral relativism.

First I've heard of it. He is in London now according to what I read and hampering a UN inquiry is serious business, on top of the charge that his government intentionally fail to investigate the murder of Bhutto.

The only smudge I see is that Bhutto's husband is now President of Pakistan and could be viewed as bias as he obviously has an axe to grind. Even if he does act in an impartial way there is always the appearance.

He should face the charges though and I think that if the procedure is done right, England or any developed country that he is in should follow the rule of law and provide an extradition hearing to see justice is served.

 

[gerryh]

if you go back, you will see that I had corrected a spelling mistake.

"My" Pope hasn't molested any children, and what the "Pope" has or has not done is irrelevant to this discussion.

As I said, the Pakistani Government can ask England to extradite him and if they refuse, the precedent has already been set as to what the requesting country can do.

 

[CDNBear]

if you go back, you will see that I had corrected a spelling mistake.

Gotchya...

"My" Pope hasn't molested any children, and what the "Pope" has or has not done is irrelevant to this discussion.

I never said he did. But you have stated that Bush is a torture supporting son of a bitch and should be tried. Even though there is no indictment filed against him. How does that equate when balanced by the fact that your Pope has been accused of shielding and covering up child molestation?

I already know you don't think he should be tried.

I just want to know why there's a double standard.

As I said, the Pakistani Government can ask England to extradite him and if they refuse, the precedent has already been set as to what the requesting country can do.

And that would be?

 

[Unforgiven]

But you have stated that Bush is a torture supporting son of a bitch and should be tried. Even though there is no indictment filed against him.

But he is and that's clear, water boarding is torture, now that Bush is out of office, the US is again in step with the the stance that water boarding is torture.

Bush has no superior to answer to and so can not claim that he was ordered to condone and allow water boarding as a means of interrogation on his watch. He stands accused and like Musharraf has no intention of stepping up to face that charge.

I expect that where ever he goes internationally, there will be someone ready to swear out a complaint against him for war crimes.

We'll see just how long his friends can protect him.

 

[gerryh]

That would be? That would be invasion by Pakistan and it's allies of course. The same thing that the united sl*ts of america and NATO did to Afghanistan when the Taliban refused to hand over AQ of course.

 

[CDNBear]

But he is and that's clear, water boarding is torture, now that Bush is out of office, the US is again in step with the the stance that water boarding is torture.

And you think it has stopped?

Bush has no superior to answer to and so can not claim that he was ordered to condone and allow water boarding as a means of interrogation on his watch. He stands accused and like Musharraf has no intention of stepping up to face that charge.

And you're surprised?

I expect that where ever he goes internationally, there will be someone ready to swear out a complaint against him for war crimes.

I have no doubt about that.

We'll see just how long his friends can protect him.

I suspect a very long time.

That would be? That would be invasion by Pakistan and it's allies of course.

Why would Pakistan invade Pakistan for Musharraf, when Musharraf is in England?

The same thing that the united sl*ts of america and NATO did to Afghanistan when the Taliban refused to hand over AQ of course.

Oh that...

Hey, I posed a serious question to you. And it was a real question. Why didn't you answer it Gh? To hard for you?

 

[gerryh]

Fu ck, you're a moron today.

The question regarding the Pope and bush has nothing to do with this thread. I chose to ignore your obvious and blatant troll.

 

[CDNBear]

Fu ck, you're a moron today.

As apposed to your new found daily moronic escapades?

The question regarding the Pope and bush has nothing to do with this thread. I chose to ignore your obvious and blatant troll.

They're all related Gh. And it wasn't a troll. It was a serious question.

You were very clear about your opinion of what Bush is. Although there are no indictments filed in any court to my knowledge.

The Pope has some serious allegations directed at him, about his conduct. And yet you still feel he is untouchable.

Why the double standard?

They're both just men, whom may have committed serious crimes.

 

[gerryh]

As apposed to your new found daily moronic escapades?

They're all related Gh. And it wasn't a troll. It was a serious question.

You were very clear about your opinion of what Bush is. Although there are no indictments filed in any court to my knowledge.

The Pope has some serious allegations directed at him, about his conduct. And yet you still feel he is untouchable.

Why the double standard?

They're both just men, whom may have committed serious crimes.

You want to talk about the Pope, start another thread. This one, you started is about Musharraf. That's who I will discuss. Go troll someone else.

 

[CDNBear]

You want to talk about the Pope, start another thread. This one, you started is about Musharraf. That's who I will discuss. Go troll someone else.

All three have something in common. There is a correlation here, that's why I posted the OP.

If you can't handle the discussion, just say so. I'll understand your reluctance to participate.

 

[Unforgiven]

And you think it has stopped?

They've been ordered to stick to the manual and it's not in the manual so it had better of stopped or those who are found to be water boarding prisoners can be prosecuted for it.

And you're surprised?

My reaction is unimportant. Only that if he is charged with war crimes, that he faces the charge on the same points as Musharraf.

I have no doubt about that.

I suspect a very long time.

They are a powerful group of people with deep pockets. There have been other very powerful and connected people swing for their actions.

How do you feel about the prospect of Bush spending life in prison for war crimes?

 

[CDNBear]

How do you feel about the prospect of Bush spending life in prison for war crimes?

I don't know. I haven't seen all the evidence yet. I am however leaning to the fact that he's guilty, by international treaty and law.

I'm looking at it from a different perspective then you though Unf. Although I prefer a far different manner of interrogation. There are time constraints that may make more abhorrent types, more palatable. Therefore more acceptable to me, rather then yourself.

A fair trial, in a legitimate court of law, would be nice though.

 

[gerryh]

All three have something in common. There is a correlation here, that's why I posted the OP.

If you can't handle the discussion, just say so. I'll understand your reluctance to participate.

In the OP you mention Mushararraf and Bush. No mention of the Pope at all. you didn't throw him into the mix untill after the fact. If you had mentioned him at the begining I would have ignored your blatant troll right from the start.

 

[Unforgiven]

I don't know. I haven't seen all the evidence yet. I am however leaning to the fact that he's guilty, by international treaty and law.

I'm looking at it from a different perspective then you though Unf. Although I prefer a far different manner of interrogation. There are time constraints that may make more abhorrent types, more palatable. Therefore more acceptable to me, rather then yourself.

A fair trial, in a legitimate court of law, would be nice though.

I understand that. But there isn't anything that makes it right. If it's wrong it's wrong and that's the end of it. If it's wrong and we choose to go ahead anyway, we live with the consequences what ever they may be. What we do to the worst of us, puts the best of us at risk.

 

[damngrumpy]

This one is just too funny complaining about the left saying nothing. Bhutto was the left
wing candidate, and the former dictator was a right wing buddy of George Bush,
Of course the left is silent, they are the ones filing the charges as Pakistan has a left
leaning government at the moment. Most people are not aware that Bhutto was her
fathers daughter as it were, in politics and she had been in power before. Musharraf
had removed the Bhutto's from power and they were so popular he couldn't really touch
her up front. Make no mistake, she was every bit as ruthless as he was.
Few doubt that he was behind her murder but there is no proof of that. Pakistan is a
very strange place but in some ways ahead of us. She was a former head of state
something that we have done only for a moment, and they are for the most part a Muslim
country. Musharraf will never stand trial, because there were others who did not want her
to return to power, and those significant others, were politicians from the west.
But to suggest the left is silent because there is something to hide is not correct as the left
in Pakistan is in power and filing the charges.

 

[CDNBear]

In the OP you mention Mushararraf and Bush. No mention of the Pope at all. you didn't throw him into the mix untill after the fact. If you had mentioned him at the begining I would have ignored your blatant troll right from the start.

My bad, I'll have to remember that factoid the next time I see new names tossed up in a thread...

...All the players must be named in the OP, or they can not be mentioned in a thread, no matter how much it pertains to the topic...

Gotchya!

:roll:

But there isn't anything that makes it right. If it's wrong it's wrong and that's the end of it.

I think killing is wrong. But there are necessary evils in life. Those necessary evils, sometimes actually save lives.

If it's wrong and we choose to go ahead anyway, we live with the consequences what ever they may be.

I agree.

What we do to the worst of us, puts the best of us at risk.

In a way, yes. But I still think if the many can be saved by the slaughter of the few. I'm willing to do it.

Musharraf will never stand trial, because there were others who did not want her
to return to power, and those significant others, were politicians from the west.

Here comes the anti American crap again...

But to suggest the left is silent because there is something to hide is not correct as the left
in Pakistan is in power and filing the charges.

Ummm, miss the point much?