You are saying that it is not the issue of vice and virtue but rather it is a race for power struggle, right?
Since, the creation of human, vice and virtue,have been fighting with each other and they will till fight dooms day does not occur.
I personally like Aitzaz's personality but his notions and actions are without an iota of ex-aggregation dubious and provoking.
Thus, admit the reality that Aitzaz has started losing his credibility and fame since he declared himself counsel of PM.

@ Invincible

gentleman if your opinion about Mr. zardari and gilani is that they are innocent bcz they are not proven guilty then there is no criminal in this country,,,,,,,everyone is innocent,,,,,,,,,,, and also hats of your simplicity and innocence,,,,,,,,,,,,,

actually as a nation we are confused,,,,,,,,,,,,is qom mein zardari b guility nai ha,,,,,,gilani b guility nai ha,,,,,, altaf b guility nai ha,,,,,,,,musharraf b guilty nai,,,,,,or last but not the least Mian brothers are also not guility,,,,,,,,,,,,so they all are innocent and or guilty hen to ham awam hen jo har bar inka sath dety hen,,,,,,,,,kabhi lawyers movement mein in k wadon par yaqen kr k or kabhi election mein in ko vote day kr,,,,,,,,hamary sath aisa hi hona chahiye jo ho raha ha,,,,,,,,,, bcz aik babr awan jaye ga to ap jaisy bohat say zardari k wakeel bananay ko tayar ho jayen gay k just on the basis that k innocent unless proven guility,,,,,,,,,,,,,,aitzaz sab lawyers movement mein baray naaray lagaya krty thay k AB RAJ KARY GI KHALQ-E-KHUDA, or ya phr RIASAT HO GI MAA K JESI,,,,,,,, to riasat us sooteli maa say b ziada buri ha jis nay ghareeb say roti tak cheen li ha,,,,,,,,and now aitzaz ahan is riasat ko chalany walay ko support krnay court mein pohch gaya ha,,,,,,,,,,,

or g wakai moral values zardari sab, aitzaz sab or gilani sab ki or hen bcz they are innocent,,,,,,,,,,and according to them making a public commitment or phr us say mukar jana is not an offense,,,,,,,,,,, gunah to is awam ka ha jo en pay believe krty hen or ap jesay supporter dety hen,,,,,,,,,

in short

HUM NAY TO QATEEL US SA MUNAFIQ NAHI DAIKHA,
JO ZULIM TO SEHTA HA, BAGHAWAT NAHI KRTA,,,,

__________________
Hope sees the invisible, feels the intangible and achieves the impossible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mano g Bench is already doing so, as far as bar is concerned, it should also fulfill its promises with judiciary........

Bench has performed poorly as far as their own institution is concerned.You will be startled to see the ratio of corruption in lower courts & high courts.

Honorable 17n Judges are as busy as a beaver in just high profile cases since attaining their reinstatement and paying no heed to 12 lac's cases which have been pending since time immemorial.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mano g ''a lawyer'' has said that ''what will the outcome of writing letter to swiss courts,we will not be able to get that 6 billion rupees back''.is that statement is not paving the way for corruption????

I don't wanna drag this discussion tediously to ambiguous "Immunity" issue yet I am awaiting SC's Direct directive which interprets crystal clear whether "the Office of Presidency" enjoys immunity in criminal cases or not.

Regards,

__________________
When you try, you risk failure. When you don’t try, you ensure it.

Dude, Ap in sb ko hang krdou but red color mein argue na krou with me.

This way of writing is an affront to me.

Stay blessed.

__________________
When you try, you risk failure. When you don’t try, you ensure it.

question is when bhutoo was`nt given immunity then why zardari or Gillani??

__________________
"Wa tu izzu man-ta shaa, wa tu zillu man-ta shaa"

By Ahmad Noorani
Saturday,February 11,2012

ISLAMABAD: “We are sorry, Mr Aitzaz Ahsan, were the words of Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry which sunk the case of Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan, and one could clearly read his face which had only one message: “I should not have appeared before the CJ, and thus I would have at least stood by my word not to appear before the chief justice in person.”

Aitzaz’s was down and out after losing the second case in a week’s time, and his face was clearly depicting the agony as he was once widely respected because of his role in the lawyers’ movement, and his image had taken a severe battering because he decided to plead a losing case of a leadership which has no moral legs to stand on. He sided with the immoral squad and that would hurt him.

When The News had published the story on February 7, 2012, headlined ‘Aitzaz ready for another U-turn, will appear before CJ’, he protested loudly in and outside the SC, but he himself has to be blamed for pushing his reputation down the drain.

Not just his image but his professional competence is also being questioned as his appeal has been judged by a majority of legal and constitutional experts as a piece of non-legal junk based on anything but points of law.

By writing the embarrassing sentences in his appeal, which spoke of restoration of the chief justice and his children, Aitzaz angered the bench, but he surprised the legal fraternity when he argued in support of NRO beneficiaries and said the Swiss corruption cases against President Zardari were baseless.

How could a lawyer who says the cases are baseless and had been closed in Swiss court then argue that the letter should not be written? What would the letter achieve if the cases were closed and dead? Why then he hesitates. Aitzaz in the SC never answered these questions.

The fact Aitzaz knows is that the Swiss investigation magistrate had convicted President Zardari on October 29, 2007, and President Zardari’s appeal against his conviction was also rejected by the ‘Swiss Court of Appeals’ on the basis of strong evidence on March 19, 2008.

At one point, when Aitzaz tried to praise prime minister by saying ‘PM appeared before the Supreme Court’, the chief justice said, “Prime Minister didn’t do anything pious; he had to do this. You know, Mr Aitzaz, even Hazrat Umar (RA) had to appear before the court, and he was given no concession. Do you know this, Mr Aitzaz?

What baffled many in the courtroom was that Aitzaz Friday rejected or simply ignored, the repeated opportunities given to him by the CJ and other honourable members of the bench to speak to the prime minister and try to convince him to find some way to implement the SC order and to get the country out of the present situation.

The chief justice and Justice Saqib Nisar repeatedly tried to convince Aitzaz that in the best interest of the country and its institutions, Aitzaz should contact the prime minister immediately and ‘convey to him our message’ that as chief executive of the country, he should hold high moral grounds and should find some way out to implement the apex court’s judgment.

However, Aitzaz stuck to his position that he was arguing on only about the ‘contempt issue’ and that ‘it was not his mandate to convince the prime minister’. On this, Justice Saqib Nisar again tried to convince Aitzaz asking him: “Aitzaz, we understand that it is not your mandate, but we are asking you, for God sake, go to the prime minister and ask him to give us some option or mechanism for implementation of an apex court judgment which has gained finality.’ Aitzaz again refused to play the role of a ‘fire-fighter’ between the institutions.

When the chief justice, finally, asked him the same thing for the last time, Aitzaz took it non-seriously again saying: “OK, give me 10 to 15 days for this.” On Aitzaz’s refusal, Justice Jawwad S Khawaja told him in straight words, “OK, Mr Aitzaz, just leave it. We have repeatedly asked one thing. We asked in the national interest, and there was no other interest in this. But if you don’t want to do it, just leave this here and continue with your arguments. We will give the judgment in accordance with the law and Constitution.”

Aitzaz did not forgive the media even on Friday and told the bench: “Even today, the media has written that I faced embarrassment which I don’t have. They wrote many things against me.”

While the chief justice repeatedly referred to President Zardari’s interview with Geo News anchor Hamid Mir in which the president had categorically stated that his party had decided not to implement the apex court judgment and not to write a letter to the Swiss authorities, the judges told Aitzaz in categorical terms by using the words: “The NRO judgment of the Supreme Court has to be, has to be, has to be implemented, Mr Aitzaz.”

Court gave Aitzaz as much time as he required and even at the end of his arguments, the chief justice asked him if he has anything more to present, Aitzaz finally conceded: “No, I have concluded my arguments.” It was a sad end for a bad case, handled by a sorry counsel who once was a hero. Where he stands now, he has to evaluate himself.

__________________
Giving up doesn't always mean you are weak … sometimes it means that you are strong enough to let go:)

dear brother,,,,,

i use the red color just to highlight it so that it becomes eye catching,,,,,,,, my intention was not to affront you,,,,,,,,,,,don't think like that,,,,,,,,,,,my point was that k plz don't give the arguments like babar awan k supreme court k pas baqi 12 lakh cases b to pending pary hen wo q ni suntay ,,,,,,,,, ye case pakistan ki sari political elite ka imtehan ha k what are the moral values of our leaders,,,,,,,,,,,,,a person like aitzaz who was previously criticizing now he is in court to defend that corrupt leaders,,,,,,, so he deceived the public who supported him whole heartedly in lawyers movement,,,,,,,,,,

never mind,,,,,,,,,,

__________________
Hope sees the invisible, feels the intangible and achieves the impossible.

The office of Presidency enjoys immunity not of Premier according to constitution of Pakistan.

Article 248 states:"No criminal proceedings whatsoever shall be instituted or continued against the President or a Governor in any Court during his term of office".

Regards,

__________________
When you try, you risk failure. When you don’t try, you ensure it.

for the members who support and oppose Aitzaz representing a corrupt government.

Professionally a Lawyer, what would have been the case, had the Quaid Azam been asked to defend the congress in the court of law after its repressive rule from 1937-39.

Being a lawyer what would have been the consequences if Nelson Mandela was asked to defend the Apartheid?

and what if Bhutto was asked to defend his death sentence awarded to him by the court of law?

__________________
Prejudice is an opinion without judgment. Voltaire my hero

Off course Machiavellian politics is devoid of morality, so is Austin's positive theory of Law which divorced morality from law. But shall the man also divorce morality and follow what is legal, his duty and his right. If so, why do we condemn Hitler, after all what he did was legal and was in accordance with the laws of Germany.

__________________
Prejudice is an opinion without judgment. Voltaire my hero