Musharraf Granted Bail in the Killing of Bhutto

Musharraf Granted Bail in the Killing of Bhutto

By SALMAN MASOOD and ISMAIL KHAN
Published: May 20, 2013


ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — After weeks of legal setbacks, Pakistan’s former military ruler, Pervez Musharraf, won a small victory on Monday amid media speculation that the military is seeking to free the former army chief from a tangle of court cases.

An antiterrorism court in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, granted Mr. Musharraf bail on charges relating to the death of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, who was assassinated in 2007 while Mr. Musharraf was in power.

His lawyer, Salman Safdar, said bail, which was set close to $20,000, represented Mr. Musharraf’s “first legal relief” since his dramatic return from exile in March and subsequent arrest.

The decision will not, however, set the former military leader free.

I read this when it was first posted. I hope they bury him in legal cases. He aint no friend of the US. I dont trust him. Others are free to express their opinions to the contrary of course. These are the types of stories that should be watched for future reference imho.

As always stay tuned.

He was a friend in my book considering he didn't declare war against us despite our actions in and around his country. Or a pussy, i dont know. lol

Anyone treating the US in the manner we treat Pakistan would be simply destroyed.

Fact there is not one friend in Pakistan.

I agree if the guy sits in prison for the rest of his life I wouldn't care.

Don't trust anyone in Pakistan or any foreign country when it comes to alliances never forget self interest will always outweigh the 'alliance'.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Like the new Tac Vest...as for the Suppressor, did you fill out ATF Form 4 for that..? If not, your avatar can't roll with it, so please provide the necessary documentation.





From source:

His lawyer, Salman Safdar, said bail, which was set close to $20,000, represented Mr. Musharraf’s “first legal relief” since his dramatic return from exile in March and subsequent arrest.

We paid him 50 times that, so bail shouldn't be a problem...now, as to his knowledge on their nukes..? Odds are - he and Bhutto will be together shortly.

reply to post by neo96


You are correct about self-interest overruling allegiances.

We should always keep this in mind with our international dealings, but it seems you are advocating that we should not form alliances in general.

This would be a monumental mistake in strategy and dramatically weaken either the US or any country who attempts it.

I'd have to say this is like much of the world and so is he for a leader. Our friends are where we've bought them. The problem with buying friends is that loyalty only extends as far as the credit line or direct help. It's a wonder to imagine what things were done all across the war on terror years that he'd have to share at a most inopportune moment....so he's a friend for that reason alone these days. I don't think he killed Bhutto. That's too pat and simple for something with such layers to it. Just my general take on that.

Overall though? The ISI has been working against everything the US has been trying to accomplish clear back into the 1980's with the Soviets over the border. Let Pakistan have Pakistan all to themselves. They deserve the system they actually have, when it's turned lose, IMO.

Originally posted by K9millionaire
reply to post by neo96

 

You are correct about self-interest overruling allegiances.

We should always keep this in mind with our international dealings, but it seems you are advocating that we should not form alliances in general.

This would be a monumental mistake in strategy and dramatically weaken either the US or any country who attempts it.

Pretty much

So how has that 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' been working out of for the US ?

That is an Arabic proverb by the way, and the Chinese have an identical one

reply to post by neo96


The "enemy of my enemy is my friend" rationale is one of the many reasons we form alliances, and is by its nature risky and unpredictable. These alliances have not been working for the U.S. lately because we have overestimated our ability to control a group we support and eventually put into power. But that is besides the point.

Alliances can and are formed for many reasons, the best ones being mutual interests and safety. Our alliances with both Canada and the UK are prime examples. With no alliances, we are basically viewing the rest of the world as our enemy, and look how that's worked out for N. Korea.

Originally posted by SLAYER69

I read this when it was first posted. I hope they bury him in legal cases. He aint no friend of the US. I dont trust him. Others are free to express their opinions to the contrary of course. These are the types of stories that should be watched for future reference imho.

As always stay tuned.

The US doesn't have ANY friends in Pakistan, I don't much care what they claim to the contrary! Musharraf was dirty from the get-go, but hey, he was Bush's fair-haired boy, and could do no wrong in US eyes. Looks like that's gonna catch up to him now.

Originally posted by K9millionaire
reply to post by neo96

 

You are correct about self-interest overruling allegiances.

We should always keep this in mind with our international dealings, but it seems you are advocating that we should not form alliances in general.

This would be a monumental mistake in strategy and dramatically weaken either the US or any country who attempts it.

"Alliances" AKA "Foreign Entanglements"... to be avoided, according to the Founding Fathers. I'm just not sure how NOT being spread out across the globe fighting other folks' wars is supposed to "weaken" the US. Hell, the only reason we even need the strength provided by these foreign entanglements is to get into these foreign entanglements.

Looks like a catch-22 to me.

[

reply to post by nenothtu


First of all an alliance is not a foreign entanglement

Secondly, the Founding Fathers relied on alliances with both the French and Germans to win the revolutionary war.
So either your understanding of their beliefs is flawed, or they were hypocrites.

Lastly, while it is true that not every alliance is a good one, and that some are downright awful, that does not mean that we should abandon them all together. When # hits the fan you need all the help you can get, and to deny that is dangerously foolish.

At least the Pakistanis have the cojones to do this.

Can't be said about our leaders/war criminals who strayed into the darkside and be accorded presidential libraries.

Originally posted by neo96


Don't trust anyone in Pakistan or any foreign country when it comes to alliances never forget self interest will always outweigh the 'alliance'.

Dirty.

Thats the one word to describe him. Fact is, that whole region cares about one thing. Who they can screw over.

Originally posted by K9millionaire
reply to post by nenothtu

 

First of all an alliance is not a foreign entanglement

You form an alliance, you're bound to have their back when they decide to go around kicking bar stools out fom other countries, and fighting in their wars, rather than looking out for your own. Out of curiosity, what is it YOU define as a "foreign entanglement"? Cleaning up their messes sounds pretty entangling to me.

Secondly, the Founding Fathers relied on alliances with both the French and Germans to win the revolutionary war.
So either your understanding of their beliefs is flawed, or they were hypocrites.

Hiring mercenaries is not an "alliance".

It was the idea of the French to dabble in the colonial affairs - something about returning a black eye to the Brits from the French and Indian wars, and that whole Canada thing.

Lastly, while it is true that not every alliance is a good one, and that some are downright awful, that does not mean that we should abandon them all together. When # hits the fan you need all the help you can get, and to deny that is dangerously foolish.

It's only dangerous and foolish when it's YOU going around kicking the bar stools and then running for help. Keep your nose in your own business, and it's not so much of a problem.

Originally posted by K9millionaire
With no alliances, we are basically viewing the rest of the world as our enemy, and look how that's worked out for N. Korea.

Baloney. You don't have to form an alliance to keep yourself from kicking the crap out of someone - you just don't kick the crap out of them.

lack of alliances does not equate to seeing an enemy under every bed.

You form an alliance, you're bound to have their back when they decide to go around kicking bar stools out fom other countries, and fighting in their wars, rather than looking out for your own. Out of curiosity, what is it YOU define as a "foreign entanglement"? Cleaning up their messes sounds pretty entangling to me.

You are not bound by any means within an alliance to "have their back". You may end your alliance at any point you feel is advantageous. If your ally has become out of control and now acting out of your best interests, you end the alliance. Simple.
By the way a foreign entanglement is becoming involved beyond retreat in a foreign affair.

It was the idea of the French to dabble in the colonial affairs - something about returning a black eye to the Brits from the French and Indian wars, and that whole Canada thing.

Quite the Balk. It was the french's idea? We didn't have anything to do with them and the Germans fighting along our side, they just did it? lol dont be afraid to admit when your wrong

It's only dangerous and foolish when it's YOU going around kicking the bar stools and then running for help. Keep your nose in your own business, and it's not so much of a problem.

It's also dangerous when you are attacked, and that will happen regardless of where your nose has been when you have no allies and there will be no repercussions for an unprovoked attack from the international community.
Your belief system regarding alliances is at the far end of the direction this country needs to move in, too far infact.

He will get off! Then it will be off to exile again. Same old story. All of the people in that part of the world are a bunch of crooks. Double dealing about everything. Kill or lock up a terrorist, and then let another go. Worked out fairly well for Old General Pervez! The international aide kept on pouring in. To the tune of billions per year. Nothing got done! He is just another crooked politician on the take with plenty of dirt under his finger nails. Just like Karzai in Afghanistan. Should have pulled out of that backwater like yesterday!

Originally posted by K9millionaire

You are not bound by any means within an alliance to "have their back". You may end your alliance at any point you feel is advantageous. If your ally has become out of control and now acting out of your best interests, you end the alliance. Simple.
By the way a foreign entanglement is becoming involved beyond retreat in a foreign affair.

If your honor is such that you are willing to break your word at the drop of a hat, why give your word to begin with? Personally, I'd rather not give my word in the first place than to give it and then weasel out of it. Evidently your mileage varies from that. I'm beginning to see why an increasing number of foreigners are seeing the US as untrustworthy. If that's the prevailing attitude these days, I guess I can understand why they do.

Quite the Balk. It was the french's idea? We didn't have anything to do with them and the Germans fighting along our side, they just did it? lol dont be afraid to admit when your wrong

I suppose you would prefer to simply gloss over the troubles the French had on a recurring basis with the British here. I probably would too, if I were trying to lay it at the colonist's doorstep. I could be wrong here, but I recall no French ground troops at all. So what sort of "along our side" fighting are you referring to?

No. German. Alliance. Not of any sort. Hiring mercenaries does not constitute an "alliance", and if it did, then the Germans had a pretty sweet deal, having allies on BOTH sides, with the bulk of those "allies" fighting along side the Brits. That's kind of like claiming that Executive Outcomes had an "alliance" with the Seychelles. Von Steuben was a mercenary, too - not a result of a "German Alliance". It wouldn't have been a "German Alliance" even if he's actually hit the field and fought - he STILL would have been a mercenary, not the representative of any illusory German Alliance.

It's also dangerous when you are attacked, and that will happen regardless of where your nose has been when you have no allies and there will be no repercussions for an unprovoked attack from the international community.
Your belief system regarding alliances is at the far end of the direction this country needs to move in, too far infact.

And why SHOULD there be any repercussions from "the international community"? Unless, of course, it's "the international community" that comes under attack - and in that case, no alliances are necessary to assist them in deciding to act in their own best interests.

Of course, if you avoid going around pissing folks off, you stand a far smaller chance of getting attacked in the first place. You know, pissing folks off by doing things like entangling yourself in foreign alliances that result in you having to go poking around in foreigners squabbles.

What benefits do you believe these alliances have netted the US so far this century - or last century, for that matter? What is it you think we've gained that we couldn't have gotten without these alliances? What kind of attack are you seriously expecting on the US that we would possibly need foreign allies to handle? Maybe you're expecting Russia to invade? China to surreptitiously infiltrate a massive fleet of invisible submarines across the Pacific and overrun us? Aliens? A massive assault by the Army of San Marino?

What sort of invasion or attack are you expecting that the US is incapable of handling? I don't see Canada invading us in the near term - we've got nothing they want. Mexico HAS made a few minor cross-border raids, but I'm pretty sure we could handle them by ourselves if we took a notion to - I've not seen any of our allies racing to assist us during those raids. Who else do you expect to run trans-oceanic incursions against us?

I don't have a belief system regarding alliances - I don't believe in them at all. I'm good with withdrawal, isolation, and barricading the borders against rampaging hordes of mutant South American Amazon spider monkeys if necessary. The Panamanian isthmus would bottleneck them into manageable numbers anyhow, even if they could manage to somehow completely overrun Central America and Mexico - the spider monkey army would be spread pretty thin by then.

Maybe fielding a few drones to search out spider monkey staging areas rather than pumping blood and money into foreign squabbles would help?

It is the height of American arrogance to suggest that we can "buy" friends and allies.

Like everything else in life, those have to be earned.