The ‘prisoner’ in Chak Shahzad perhaps has a few more cups of coffees to gulp and smoke a few more cigars to smoke before his fate is finally sealed. As mentioned right here, the social media has rumors flying high like kites that ‘international friends’ have been trying hard to get him out of the Promised and flown to the Blessed Lands. So far those rumors have been nothing more than rumors of course. The prisoner has been spending his time calling friends in all continents thus far. So goes the tale. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif his in his recent speech at the National Assembly has categorically declared that the former general Pervez Musharraf will be tried under Article six of the constitution. But here comes the rub. The charge is solely Musharraf declaring the emergency in 2007 and suspending the constitution. Yours truly will not repeat the same lines that yours truly has penned about the subject at hand because it may be considered stale arguments. But it sure reminds one of a a legal term that one picked in his Business Law class called ‘Double Jeopardy’. It is a procedural defence that prevents a defendant from being tried on same or similar charges after a legitimate acquittal or conviction. The key and operative phrases here are ‘similar charges’ and ‘acquittal’. We all know that procedural law is not always black and white, though it is meant to be. There are shades of grey here and there. The readers would question the scribe’s legal background and rightfully so as he has none whatsoever. But the scribe holds an opinion tht may be contrary to the general opinion about the former general. The concept of double jeopardy comes to mind as the parliament ratified Musharraf’s coup in 1999, and the honourable apex court gave him the blessing as well. May I repeatedly remind the oft-shy-on-detail readers that the constitution was also abrogated at that juncture. In legal terms, rather than being charged for such a heinous crime, Musharraf was acquitted by the lawmakers, not only acquitted but made the chief executive and president of Pakistan. How do you make the argument that since he repeated that offence again in 2007, therefore let’s forget 1999 and only focus on 2007? The argument that is widely peddled is that the two events were dissimilar and the excesses committed by the general towards the honourable judges were unprecedented. I humbly and respectfully beg to differ with that line of argument. Then there are those who express their unrestrained joy towards a ‘retired’ general being brought to justice. The operative word here is retired. Please call it revenge if you will, but do not degrade it by calling it the ‘rule of law’. Because the law is equal in 1999 and 2007. If the parliament or any other entity endorsed that illegal act in 1999, they are equally answerable under that much touted Article. There is no distinction in the law about the preceding and or the intensity of superceding events. The readers often criticise the scribe for siding with the now besieged general. I beg to differ with them in utmost humility. Those readers are encouraged to do an extensive search for my write-ups about General Musharraf. I am, was, and will always remain his staunchest critic for all his illegal acts regardless of what year they were committed in. In my dictionary an illegal act will remain an illegal act, no matter who ratifies or endorses it. The readers are strongly encouraged to revisit the text of Article six to understand the scribe’s unflinching position. Very interestingly the new prime minister is very conveniently ignoring the former general’s original sin, which ousted the former from his legitimate power. The readers are encouraged to search the minute by minute account of that dark day of October 12, 1999. It would honestly pass for a blockbuster script of any Hollywood thriller. What transpired within a few hours from noon to perhaps dusk in the Promised Land and the way it was played out would really go down as a clash of two titans, often witnessed in our hastily churned out Punjabi flicks. The so-called analysts , armchair pundits and nightly ring leaders on the tube circus are busy manufacturing the imaginary dragnet, which would also take down the all and sundry accomplices of the former general. Hmmm. One wonders how these people conjure such wild theories. But as they say it’s either the pretty, funny or silly that really sells in the tinsel town. One can safely say that the nightly circus has no dearth of the funny or silly ones. After all, what would be a circus minus the clowns? The writer is a Pakistani-American mortgage banker. He blogs at http://dasghar.blogspot.com and can be reached at dasghar@aol.com He tweets at http://twitter.com/dasghar