| Submit your comments on this article | |
| India-Pakistan | |
| Pak Supreme Court asked to stop parleys with Taliban | |
| 2013-05-29 | |
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court was petitioned on Tuesday for issuance of a declaration that no person, civil or military, can engage in any contact or negotiation with any private army (the Taliban), an act that is forbidden by Article 256.
“The court’s attention is called to the plight of the combatant soldier and his loosening grip on the trigger when he discovers that his blood is now a matter of bargain for the next prime minister of Pakistan. Some judges of this court (who were locked in their homes) may kindly recall their feeling towards their betraying colleagues who joined hands with the military president in November 2007. All betrayals stink alike,” Orakzai remarked. He said that the armed forces had not lost any ground or territory to the rebels nor have they lost the will to fight, and the court could seek their view from JCSC chairman or any other officer mentioned in Article 243. “Having suffered loss of life, they are bewildered by the sudden U-turn in state policy on the war,” he noted. The petitioner also questioned whether the armed forces of Pakistan can propose a truce/ceasefire/end of hostilities to the enemy on the territory of Pakistan. “Whether the armed forces shall uphold the constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court or by the federal government,” he added Orakzai asked whether any citizen is empowered by the constitution to negotiate peace with a private army waging war on Pakistan. He contended that it was the duty of the court to ask why the armed forces of Pakistan were being compelled to raise a white flag and why was the national flag being pulled down only a few steps from victory. “This petition seeks an instant and immediate halt to the double-crossing move of some politico-religious elements to impose a disgraceful armistice, call it semi-surrender, on the bleeding armed forces of Pakistan. These elements are, in fact, seeking religious and moral victory for the Taliban rebels who literally stand divorced from the Islamic Republic.” Orakzai said that Article 190 binds all executive and judicial authorities throughout the country to act in aid of this court, and likewise the court is duty-bound to come to the aid of the armed forces in this critical hour. All those who have taken oath under the constitution are bound to show solidarity with each other, he said. “This court shall appreciate the legal handicap of the armed forces who because of their discipline (as emphasised by Article 8) cannot themselves check the political moves aimed to defeat their constitutional duty.” | |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #1 their Constitution has over 256 friggin' articles in it... Ours probably does too, but I'm not going to go count all the 'the's in it to find out. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2013-05-29 08:55 |