If Parviz Musharaf should be allowed to escape or not.
Comment with reason?

Musharraf should be tried under the constitution of Pakistan.Let the sky fall. Time is ripe to portray the supremacy of the constitution and rule of law.His trial should start from his military coup of 1998 but the government is trying him only for 2007 emergency which seems a personal vendetta. If the government wants rule of law and want to send a categorical message to all potential dictators then he should be tried for all illegal and unconstitutional steps so that democracy in Pakistan can finally flourish.

I would like to add something in usman's opinion.
In addition to trial musharaf from 1998, those who had been part of his regime, should also be trialed including mr. ifthikhar chaudry.

__________________
Where There Is a Will, There Is a Way....

Both of you voted that he should be allowed to go foreign .why?

__________________
Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?
Al Rahmaan

Because he is not trialed for the rule of law, rather the govt is settling personnel vendetta and satisfying their ego. that's my point.

__________________
Where There Is a Will, There Is a Way....

I mistakenly voted yes when I should've done no. Is there a way to change that?

Anyways, I think he should definitely be tried and if the punishment of his crime is death penalty, so be it. He should not be allowed to escape no matter what.

Even if this is being done out of vendetta, of which there is no real evidence, that doesn't make his actions right. If someone implements law because of any personal interests, so be it. Show me any political trial and I'll show you vested interests. Such nitpicking in politics is absolutely childish. Vendetta or no vendetta, he should be duly punished.

As for those crying to punish the politicians who were his accomplice: there are dozens of examples when politicians were tried and many had to go to prison, including an elected prime minister who was eventually hanged. Do you guys have any such precedence when a general had to face accountability for this action, no matter how grave?

Thanx for the valuable post. But tell us if his trial is lawful.

__________________
Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?
Al Rahmaan

Yes it is. (and that's for the Supreme Court to decide, not you or me)

How did you get the idea that it isn't lawful? If a person is prosecuted for his action A (which was a violation of constitution) but not for action B (which was another violation), that does not make the prosecution about A unlawful.

Bro constitution constitution hr banda chlata hai...article 6 b sb ko nazar ata hai per article 62,63 ka kia?unki volation jurm nhe????

__________________
Where There Is a Will, There Is a Way....

Is ke 2 jawab hain.

1. Yani agar koi constitution/law ke aik part ko violate kare to hamain bhee follow kertay hoey baki constitution bhee raddi kee tokri main daal dena chahyay?

2. Article 62,63 per aap zameen per farishtay lay aen woh bhee is society main rehtay hoey pora naheen ker sakain gay.