ISI challenges SC's Faizabad sit-in verdict

[salarsikander]

Yes, there is absolutely no evidence that the military is "mired in politics, manipulating elections, subverting free speech, muzzling the press and funding extremists".


No evidence at all.


And yet Pakistan is where it is, clearly.

Yes, always blame the GHOST, Pleas efeel free to share the so-called evidence against them in court

We should accept the claim that things are different in Naya Pakistan.

Change is inevitable,

 

[The Eagle]

So a Judge can deliver a verdict without a shred of evidence?

The drag race is on. How few gets the inspiration for the verdicts, is a hell of different story. For a starter, Lawyers have a deep reach in certain chambers & then there are ways to serve & work for a mandate but in a way where most of us wouldn't see the connection. It was necessary back then to drag Military into this.

 

[Crusher]

Rightfully so. The judges should either present evidence which will result in criminal convictions or STFU.

Absolutely, courts have no business to give condescending advices in their verdicts. A court judgement should always be restricted to the evidence produced during the proceedings of the case. But since Iftikhar chaudry's time, many judgements sound like condescending advices rather than proper evidence based judgements.

I mean what does the following sentence even means in terms of a court judgement, it purley comes across as a condescending advice.

"The verdict, authored by SC judge Qazi Faez Isa, had directed the intelligence agencies, including the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), the Intelligence Bureau (IB) and the Military Intelligence (MI), and the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), not to exceed their constitutional mandates."

 

[Maarkhoor]

ISLAMABAD: The country’s premier intelligence agency has challenged the Supreme Court verdict in the Faizabad sit-in case, saying it will adversely affect the morale of the armed forces.

The verdict, authored by SC judge Qazi Faez Isa, had directed the intelligence agencies, including the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), the Intelligence Bureau (IB) and the Military Intelligence (MI), and the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), not to exceed their constitutional mandates.

It is learnt that seven review petitions have been filed so far against the apex court’s February 6 ruling. Interestingly, under the SC Rules 1980, an aggrieved party can move review petition within 30 days but in this case, the SC registrar extended the time till April 18 for the parties to file their reviews.
A senior official revealed to The Express Tribune that one section of the government was unwilling to file a review petition in this case as there was no specific direction against any individual.

They believe that the ruling is an academic exercise.

The Ministry of Defence, ISI, IB, Pemra, Election Commission of Pakistan, PTI, MQM, Federal Minister for Railways Sheikh Rashid and MNA Ijazul Haq have so far filed review petitions against the February 6 verdict.

The ISI, through Attorney General for Pakistan Anwar Mansoor Khan, has contended that the court’s observations will gather the impression that the armed forces and ISI are responsible for such unconstitutional acts.

The judgement displaces the image of the armed forces defending the country against the menace of terrorism with the image of a force mired in politics, manipulating elections, subverting free speech, muzzling the press and funding extremists.

The ISI contends that the observation about the involvement of armed forces in politics is vague as there is no evidence as such in this regard. Likewise, there was no evidence to suggest that the ISI was involved with either sit-in/dharna or particular outcome of the 2018 general elections or the abridgment of free speech or intimidation of or censorship of the press.

Observations and findings create the impression that the armed forces in violation of their oath of office have been found by this court to be involved in politics and other unlawful activities and are busy pampering rather than checking those who resort to abuse, hate and violence.

These are disturbing allegations unsupported by any credible and admissible evidence without identifying any person. Yet, the chiefs of armed forces of Pakistan have been directed to take disciplinary action against unnamed individuals who the court suspects of being so involved, says the review petition filed by ISI.

It is also contended that though the court quoted examples of intelligence agencies of different countries, it did not note that the internal and external threats and challenges faced by the intelligence agencies of these countries were very different.

The ISI stated that such remarks will be exploited by external foes in their propaganda war against the armed forces of Pakistan. Their politicians and media has in the past exploited such allegations to their advantage and will use the SC verdict to allege that the highest court of Pakistan is of the view that the armed forces are harbouring extremists, adding that armed forces can counter propaganda but their task becomes unenviable when the judgement of the highest court of Pakistan supplies ammunition to the enemies of Pakistan.

In such a situation, they cannot turn anywhere except to this court, an institution for which they have the highest respect for relief and succour.

It is also submitted that to promote their own interests and further their designs, several hostile foreign intelligence agencies have created a false perception against Pakistan and armed forces of aiding and supporting extremists organisation in the region, adding that this perception is false.

The impugned judgement; however, when read as a whole, it is submitted with great respect, unfortunately lends credence to this false narrative and has adverse implications for the security of Pakistan.

The ISI also objected to the court’s observations of halting TV transmission in the cantonment and defence areas.

Armed forces have zero tolerance policy when it comes to violation of oath by their officers. An allegation that an office of the armed forces has violated his oath of office is always inquired into. If the allegation is not devoid of basis, disciplinary proceedings are initiated. However, no action is possible in the absence of any credible evidence and that too against unnamed officers for their alleged involvement in unparticularised incidents on unspecified date, it adds.

Source:https://tribune.com.pk/story/1951538/1-isi-challenges-scs-faizabad-sit-verdict/

Bloody elected political Govt requested armed forces and agencies to intervene and solve this matter without bloodshed and when they manage to so our f@ckin court have problem. WTF is that?

 

[313ghazi]

Absolutely, courts have no business to give condescending advices in their verdicts. A court judgement should always be restricted to the evidence produced during the proceedings of the case. But since Iftikhar chaudry's time, many judgements sound like condescending advices rather than proper evidence based judgements.

I mean what does the following sentence even means in terms of a court judgement, it purley comes across as a condescending advice.

"The verdict, authored by SC judge Qazi Faez Isa, had directed the intelligence agencies, including the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), the Intelligence Bureau (IB) and the Military Intelligence (MI), and the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), not to exceed their constitutional mandates."

The judicary think they are better than the rest of us. We had this same drama with Saqib Nasir, who was busy taking suo moto against everything other than the deep entrenched rot in the institution he was heading.

 

[Ali Tariq]

now i am at the mercy of forum admins if they will protect my identity in case it ever came to that.

Kon sa nasha kar rahe ho...?

 

[Mentee]

Kon sa nasha kar rahe ho...?

New arrival , go easy on that guy

 

[Ali Tariq]

New arrival , go easy on that guy

I don't need to do anything. The way he is posting, is enough for him to get trolled by other members. Just wait...

 

[Crusher]

Do you live in Pakistan?

I realise i messed up. I should've registered and posted with a VPN, now i am at the mercy of forum admins if they will protect my identity in case it ever came to that.

As long as you are not a tool of foreign forces against pakistan, it shouldn't be any problem. I am 100% sure pakistani agencies have the capability to differentiate between someone venting out his frustration vs someone working on a foreign agenda against pakistan, you don't need to worry too much.

 

[Sharky]

Yeah I live in Pakistan and been very critical of the armed forces approach towards certain issues

Our Generals our idiots!
See nothing happened this time also

Dude you need to relax and chant Pakistan Zindabad at the top of your lungs for the right of free speech without any sorta repurcussions this country offers.

Not even my fellow countrymen are bothered about it. One even gave me a brownie for it. thanks buddy @Ghost 125

Now ask some Indian to do that. In all probability he's going to get bombarded with all kinda bad names and what not. Some would even report that guy to the Indian authorities as it has happened in the past.

Funny .. literally the same thing for me but on this side of border . Anything I speak against anyone or any organisation in India and I am called anti national.

 

[LeGenD]

Supreme Court is SUPREME - no ifs and buts. And judges at this stage are not stupid.

Wait for the investigations to conclude, and whatever it may be, we need to come to terms with it. Justice is not supposed to be selective.

 

[fisher1]

Kon sa nasha kar rahe ho...?

New arrival , go easy on that guy

The drag race is on. How few gets the inspiration for the verdicts, is a hell of different story. For a starter, Lawyers have a deep reach in certain chambers & then there are ways to serve & work for a mandate but in a way where most of us wouldn't see the connection. It was necessary back then to drag Military into this.

As long as you are not a tool of foreign forces against pakistan, it shouldn't be any problem. I am 100% sure pakistani agencies have the capability to differentiate between someone venting out his frustration vs someone working on a foreign agenda against pakistan, you don't need to worry too much.

Already got a warning from the moderator here for flaming/provocation/trolling. One out of three strikes wow.

Just because i spoke of my fear of the horrible acts that our intelligence commits which is exactly what the SC verdict mentioned too, i am flaming and trolling and provoking.

 

[The Eagle]

Already got a warning from the moderator here for flaming/provocation/trolling. One out of three strikes wow.

Just because i spoke of my fear of the horrible acts that our intelligence commits which is exactly what the SC verdict mentioned too, i am flaming and trolling and provoking.

you are assuming too much & merely accusing without any substance. Such is called sarcastic posting and the same is not allowed. Speak yourself with credibility or with support to your arguments. Such veiled comments are normal from political agents due to personal issues with LEAs. This space is not allowed for such malicious activities. Your fear is nothing but based upon too much hearsay & under influence of so & so propagandists. If you are not sure, ask politely but being judgmental & coming with authority on a matter which is not the fact, will be tolerated as such.

 

[Ali Tariq]

Already got a warning from the moderator here for flaming/provocation/trolling. One out of three strikes wow.

I get these kind of 'warnings' on almost daily basis, but, nothing 'serious' happened to me so far.

Just because i spoke of my fear of the horrible acts that our intelligence commits which is exactly what the SC verdict mentioned too, i am flaming and trolling and provoking.

If you keep posting stuff without any proper evidence/proof, then believe me, even the most 'free' countries will not let you talk like this, let alone Pakistan. So, stop behaving like a sensitive child.

 

[Crusher]

Already got a warning from the moderator here for flaming/provocation/trolling. One out of three strikes wow.

Just because i spoke of my fear of the horrible acts that our intelligence commits which is exactly what the SC verdict mentioned too, i am flaming and trolling and provoking.

Then your comments must be giving bad vibes to moderators, think about it.