Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
A PAKISTANI COURT has charged former military ruler Pervez Musharraf with the 2007 murder of opposition leader Benazir Bhutto, an unprecedented move against an ex-army chief.
It is the first time a former head of Pakistan’s powerful army has been charged with any crime. While few believe there is evidence to convict Musharraf, it sends a significant message that the power of the military has been challenged in recent years.
Musharraf, who seized power in a bloodless coup in 1999 and ruled until he was forced out after Bhutto’s Pakistan People’s Party won elections in 2008, was charged on three counts.
“He was charged with murder, criminal conspiracy for murder and facilitation for murder,” public prosecutor Chaudhry Azhar told AFP at the anti-terrorism court in Rawalpindi hearing the case.
Musharraf, who celebrated his 70th birthday last week, denied the charges. His appearance was accompanied by massive security and he was protected by scores of security officers.
Officials had said threats against his life were too severe for him to be charged on previously as initially scheduled, although he had appeared in person at an earlier hearing on 30 July.
“The charges were read out to him in the court. He denied the charges,” said Azhar. The case was adjourned until 27 August.
Musharraf’s legal team dismissed the indictment.
“These charges are baseless. We are not afraid of the proceedings. We will follow legal procedures in the court,” his lawyer Syeda Afshan Adil told AFP.
A United Nations report in 2010 said Bhutto’s death could have been prevented and accused Musharraf’s government of failing to give her adequate protection. But few believe he can be convicted of actual murder.
(Pakistani paramilitary soldier stands alert outside an anti terrorism court where former President and army chief Pervez Musharraf appeared. Pic: Anjum Naveed/AP/PA Images)
“There is a long way to go and it will be very, very difficult to prove that he engineered the murder conspiracy or that he was the mastermind,” political analyst Imtiaz Gul told AFP.
“All we have seen is a politically motivated indictment, which may be of no real significance in the long run,” he added.
Neither has the indictment silenced speculation about the possibility of a behind-the-scenes deal that could allow Musharraf to leave Pakistan without going to jail.
Current Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was sentenced to life in prison after being deposed by Musharraf in 1999, but was allowed to go into exile in Saudi Arabia.
He returned to win elections in May.
“There are external players like Saudi Arabia and former high-profile American and British officials who could possibly broker a deal the way they did for Nawaz Sharif,” said Gul.
Bhutto, twice elected prime minister of Pakistan and the first woman prime minister of a Muslim country, was killed in a gun and suicide attack in Rawalpindi on December 27, 2007.
In November 2011 the same court indicted two police officers and five alleged Taliban militants over her death, but none of them have yet been brought to trial.
There has never been a public claim of responsibility.
Musharraf’s government blamed the assassination on Pakistani Taliban chief Baitullah Mehsud, who denied any involvement. He was killed in a US drone attack in 2009.
The Bhutto case is only one in a series of court battles that Musharraf has faced since he returned in March from four years of self-imposed exile.
The new government headed by Sharif has said he should also stand trial for treason for subverting the constitution.
The offence carries the death penalty or life imprisonment.
Musharraf, who was barred from running in the May elections won by Sharif, is also wanted over the death of Baluchistan rebel leader Nawab Akbar Bugti during a military operation in 2006.
He has been under house arrest at his plush villa on the edge of the capital Islamabad since April 19.
Amnesty International has demanded that Pakistan hold Musharraf accountable for all rights violations committed during his rule.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
I wonder if anybody has actually studied which countries actually pose or have posed the most serious threat to the US.
I won’t even ask if they know which countries actually carried out the largest terrorist attacks against the US and if they are on the list.
Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. But Trump has businesses in those countries. He has no businesses in the countries he proposes to ban.
Even though they harbour and support terrorists?
Saudi Arabia -
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/18/what-we-know-about-saudi-arabias-role-in-911/amp/
The US have oil interests in Saudi, so unsurprisingly, not listed.
While undoubtedly a megalomaniac, the US defence contacts outweigh his personal interests, which is why these countries are off the list. His own families legacy and financial security is already set, and now that he has seen how he can raise military spending by tens of billions, he’ll start to grasping that power… even if it means Ivanka’s clothes don’t sell, her husband will still be at the heart of these new military contacts.
The seven countries on the list were identified by the Obama administration as the most likely sources of future terrorist attacks on US soil.
@Jason Culligan:
Great idea to forget the past and the schools and those that are financing them, that are bringing up new generations of terrorists and extremists.
Jason: How can they think pakistan poses no threat when they are using drones to kill terrorists in pakistan as we speak?
And an aggressive ban such as this will only serve to cause more terrorists to radicalise.
This ban is only to appease Trumps xenophobic followers, and won’t prevent any terrorism
@Jason Culligan: Lets talk about Iran ? What changes to the current visa programme will make America safer ? Thanks.
PS.Have the Homeland Security come out with a statement regards an imminent threat from these 7 countries ?
@Dave Harris What a lazy comparision to make : Well if the ban “serve to cause more terrorists to radicalise” Good . More drones to take them out then . So they must have been on the edge anyway
@Brian Lilly: There is some sort of policing in these countries, some control at least.
Any comment on the fact that Israeli Jews are banned from entering any of the countries on Trump’s proposed travel ban, and in most of these countries an Irish citizen would be banned from entering if they so much as have an Israeli exit / entry stamp on their Irish passport ? This has been the case for years and we’ve all been extremely quiet about it..
Well two wrongs do make a right I suppose.
@Karen Wellington: For the record Karen I don’t agree with any travel ban that is based on nationality or race – the concept of singling out people based on the colour of their passport is disgusting to me. However, I do recognise the hypocrisy in social media commentary in this country, where being anti-Israeli seems to be acceptable but being anti Iranian is horribly racist..
Countries can decide who comes in, or not – for any reason.
How is it wrong to impose restrictions on visas from countries you’re not friendly with. Israel have been known to assassinate individuals in other countries. They done so not too long ago using fake Irish passports. While you won’t stop that it seems silly to just let them wonder in.
Maybe because israel is doing pretty evil shit
@Awkward Seal: For the same reason that the UK didn’t impose a blanket ban on Irish citizens entering their country during the ’60s, ’70s & ’80s – they knew that we weren’t all intent on bombing their pubs and that most of us are law abiding and sensible people, so they allowed entry but carried out security checks. Blanket bans based on nationality is racist, uncivilised and downright unfair.
Unfair, maybe – but security and safety are more information than fairness. Every state has the right to dictate who visits, or doesn’t – do you actually think otherwise?
@willypearson: I agree, as are Syria, Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, Iraq, Yemen, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Sudan, Somalia – and don’t forget UK, Russia, Japan, Australia, France, USA, Korea, China… My point is that the Irish seem to be blinkered and single out Jewish Israel over all others.
Every country develops such policies based on the standards of the country. In the US this ban had previously been argued against as unconstitutional. If you have a constitution you pass laws that are not in conflict with it.
A blanket ban on a nation isn’t racist as it doesn’t specifically target race. If the UK were to impose a blanket ban on Irish travelling to the UK they would have been justified as it would have cut down on the number of terrorists attacks. However there is a cost-benefit analysis to such a move that would make it not worth it in most cases. If it’s unfair so what. No country is obliged to be fair to the citizens of other countries. If they don’t want to be discriminated against because of the passport they hold they should try to reform their counties so that the state doesn’t sponsor terrorism. Civilisation is based on rules. Every country in the world limits the number of people that are allowed to enter and citizens of different countries are treated differently. Some can enter for as long as they wish, some may only apply for certain visas and stay a limited amount of time and the number of visas allocated to different countries varies too. So basically every country in the world is unfairly discriminating based on nationality. So your whole argument is nonsense unless you’re advocating for open borders worldwide.
This is for s h i t s ville but seems to have posted to the wrong place
Trump is right.
@John Henry: Trump is infallible and all seeing. Trump is God. Bow down and worship our great leader. Let him rule the planet and the skies. His wisdom is infinite.
@Tony Daly: Hes not that great Tony but we get your point. Long live King Trump!
There’s a lot more scrutiny of major decisions – in the US – than here…
@Fank Pulman: you raise a very interesting but provocative point.
Politicians around the world are loving this Trump circus – all sorts of crafty shenanigans can be done under the distractions
It sounds like they have no legal leg to stand on. If Trump said the sky was blue there’d be protests on the street calling him racist against the sky.
Except that trumps is more likely to say that the sky is green.
The usual Democrat state’s running in to court going nowhere on this occasion
Trump is such a unifying President. He is coherent the US nation. He should be made honorary Chairman of FG.
Your second sentence is gibberish, and your point is childish…
@Fank Pulman: cohering the US nation.
Just being facetious.
Trump brings out that unworthy quality in me but fair criticism which I accept.
@Jason Culligan: Red herring
have your say