Shaheen Sehbai when he was in Exile in USA [HE IS STILL IN EXILE IN USA], he used to publish this in his ONLINE MAGAZINE I.E. SOUTH ASIA TRIBUNE:

“QUOTE”

On the contrary, the party which President Zardari considered to be his most dependable ally, the MQM of Altaf Hussain, has gone many steps forward to seek his removal from the top office. Almost everyone I met and talked to was surprised at the leap Altaf Hussain had taken from just opposing or abstaining from voting on the NRO to demanding the resignation of Zardari. It was like the last straw on the heavily loaded camel’s back and Zardari was stunned, those around him reported. But he can hit back with some radical moves — sack his cronies, repeal the 17th Amendment in a day or two, give an extension to the Army chief, bring back angry PPP stalwarts after due apologies and go before the courts instead of seeking shelter behind the NRO.

When NRO erupted on the face of Mr Zardari, another meeting between the Army Chief and the PM was essential on Monday night so that the right message was conveyed. And it was. Then we saw the surrender. The Zardari era, the argument goes, consists of broken promises, colossal mistakes in assessing the mood of the people, taking decisions with arrogance, taking on the establishment and institutions which were needed to survive, taking gigantic U-turns when under pressure and smiling about them, claiming unabashedly as if it was a considered policy (like the restoration of judges, sacking and restoration of the Punjab government of PML-N, surrender on the Kerry Lugar Bill and eventually running away from the NRO). REFRENCES: Has a countdown begun in Islamabad? By Shaheen Sehbai Saturday, November 07, 2009 The contours of a changed, unwritten script Situationer By Shaheen Sehbai Wednesday, November 04, 2009

SOME YEARS BACK SAME SHAHEEN SEHBAI ON THE ACCOUNTABILITY OF BENAZIR BHUTTO & ASIF ALI ZARDARI IN HIS AMERICAN BASED WEB BASED MAGAZINE SOUTH ASIA TRIBUNE

“QUOTE”

Vol-2, Jul 27- Aug 02, 2002 ISSN:1684-0275

ISLAMABAD: General Pervez Musharraf’s law ministry is rushing through a judicial treaty with the Sheikhs of UAE to enable the military government put handcuff on Pakistanis living in the Gulf, outside their jurisidiction at the moment. The diplomatic name of the treaty is “Serving of Judicial and Extra Judicial Documents, Taking of Evidence and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters”. Simply speaking any Pakistani living in UAE, the most prominent being PPP Chairperson Benazir Bhutto, would come under Islamabad’s legal purview as “enforcement of judgments” is also part of the treaty. A draft text has been rushed to the Cabinet and everybody is obediently saying yes. Little does anyone realize that the same treaty would take away the protection of Dubai or Abu Dhabi, if any of them was to flee the country after whatever wrong done in this government now.

Most of the NRO beneficiaries, whose corruption and criminal cases would re-open on Nov 28, will not be able to get pre-arrest bails as their offences under the NAB Ordinance are non-bailable, NAB officials told The News. NAB Prosecutor General Danishwar Malik, when contacted, confirmed to The News that all offences under the NAB Ordinance were non-bailable. He said trial courts (accountability courts) had no authority under the law to entertain bail applications of any NAB accused. It was never done in the past either, he said. About the non-bailability of offences under the NAB Ordinance, its Section 9(b) reads: “All offences under this ordinance shall be non-bailable and, notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 1, 426, 491, 497, 498 and 561A or any other provision of the code, or any other law for the time being in force no court shall have jurisdiction to grant bail to any person accused of any offence under this ordinance.” REFERENCE: Beneficiaries of NRO cannot get bail: NAB By Ansar Abbasi Friday, November 13, 2009

The funniest thing in all that is that National Accountability Bureau and all the Ordinances thereing were invoked by General Pervez Musharraf after imposing Martial Law in Pakistan on 12 Oct 1999, even more funnier is a fact that a Supreme Court Bench of which present Chief Justice of Pakistan was a member, had declared that Martial Law of 1999 was valid. REFERENCE: Writing of history or triumph of amnesia? Islamabad diary by Ayaz Amir Dated Friday, August 07, 2009

As per 1973 Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan

“QUOTE”

PART I

6. (1) Any person who abrogates or attempts or conspires to abrogate, subverts or attempts or conspires to subvert the Constitution by use of force or show of force or by other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason.

(2) Any person aiding or abetting the acts mentioned in clause (1) shall likewise be guilty of high treason.

(3) [Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)] shall by law provide for the punishment of persons found guilty of high treason.

“UNQUOTE”

Definition of Accomplice: An accomplice is a person who actively participates in the commission of a crime, even though they take no part in the actual criminal offense.

VALIDITY OF MILITARY REGIME’S INVOKED NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU/ORDINANCES.

“QUOTE”

Respect for civil and political rights deteriorated significantly in the year following the bloodless military coup, on October 12, 1999, that deposed Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in Pakistan. General Pervez Musharraf’s administration began to address some longstanding justice issues-notably, through the adoption of Pakistan’s first federal juvenile justice law and the establishment of a commission on the status of women-but it also greatly augmented executive powers and curtailed the independence of the judiciary. It moved to neutralize political parties through the application of broadly defined laws governing terrorism, sedition, and public order, and through the establishment of a powerful extraconstitutional “accountability” bureau. Opposition party members were subjected to prolonged detention without charge; some were tortured in custody. Sectarian violence and attacks on religious minorities continued and, despite renewed attention to the issue, the government failed to provide meaningful recourse for women victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence.

Human Rights Developments

Early in the year, the military government moved to strip the judiciary of much of its power. On January 26, General Musharraf issued an order requiring all Supreme and High Court judges to take an oath binding them to uphold his proclamation of a national emergency and to adhere to the Provisional Constitution Order (PCO). Many, including the chief justice of the Supreme Court, refused to take the oath. A total of fifteen judges were removed. The PCO, which remained in effect at this writing, had been announced by Musharraf just days after the October coup. It suspended the constitution and legislative bodies and prohibited the Supreme and High Courts from making any decision against the chief executive.

On May 12, a reconstituted Supreme Court issued a verdict rejecting petitions challenging the coup’s legality. The court set a deadline of three years for the holding of national and provincial elections, but reserved authority to review the continuation of the Proclamation of Emergency, leaving the door open to future extensions of military rule.

Top officials of the deposed government were detained on the day of the coup; two of them, former Information Minister Mushahid Hussain and former Petroleum Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan continued to be held without charge as of this writing. Nawaz Sharif himself was tried and convicted of hijacking and terrorism-for refusing to allow General Musharraf’s plane to land in the hours leading up to the coup-

under the Anti-Terrorism Act, and sentenced to life imprisonment on April 6 following a trial marred by procedural abuses.

In December 1999 the military government amended the Anti-Terrorism Act to add hijacking and conspiracy to the list of offenses falling within the Anti-Terrorism Court’s jurisdiction. These offenses were then applied retroactively to Nawaz Sharif. Another amendment allowed the government to replace the judge originally assigned to hear the case, a Sharif appointee. In January, the new judge stepped down, publicly complaining of the presence of intelligence agents in his courtroom. In March, only days before the final arguments were to be presented in the trial, Sharif’s lawyer, Iqbal Raad, and two of his colleagues were assassinated in their office. Other members of the defense team charged that the government had failed to provide them protection despite repeated warnings that they were being threatened. A month after Sharif’s conviction by the Anti-Terrorism Court, he was shifted to Attock Fort-an army-occupied sixteenth century fortress west of Islamabad-to face trial on charges of concealing assets and evading taxes in connection with his acquisition of a helicopter. He was convicted on July 22, and sentenced to fourteen years in prison, with a fine of Rs. 20 million (U.S. $380,000).

The new government’s principal vehicle for detaining former officials and party leaders, however, was the National Accountability Ordinance, a law ostensibly created to bring corrupt officials to account. The ordinance confers sweeping powers of arrest, investigation, and prosecution in a single institution, the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), and permits detainees to be held for up to ninety days without being brought before a court. The law was later amended to facilitate conviction by shifting the burden of proof during trial from the prosecution to the defense.

There were persistent reports of ill treatment in NAB custody, particularly in the case of high profile detainees who were held early in the year in Attock Fort. Persons convicted under the ordinance were prohibited from holding public office for a period of twenty-one years. An amendment to the Political Parties Act in August also barred anyone with a court conviction from holding party office. The combined effect of these acts, as they were applied, was to eliminate the existing leadership of the major political parties. While administration officials said that parties would be allowed to participate in future elections to the Senate and national and provincial assemblies, local government elections, scheduled to be held in December, were to be conducted on a non-party basis.

The Musharraf government also suppressed political activity by conducting raids on party offices, preventing political rallies from being held, and lodging criminal cases against rally organizers under laws governing sedition and the Maintenance of Public Order (MPO) Ordinance. The sedition law, Section 124-A of the Pakistan Penal Code, criminalizes speech that “brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Central or Provincial Government established by law.” Section 16 of the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance prohibits speech that “causes or is likely to cause fear or alarm to the public” or any section thereof, or which “furthers or is likely to further any activity prejudicial to public safety or the maintenance of public order.”

Rana Sanaullah Khan, a member of the suspended Punjab provincial assembly from Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League (PML), was arrested in Faisalabad on November 28, 1999. The arrest came after he criticized the army at a meeting of former legislators and urged his colleagues to launch a protest movement against the military government. He was tortured while in custody, and criminal charges were registered against him under the sedition law and MPO . REFERENCE: Human Rights Developments

Pakistan

National Level: The Musharraf Government in 1999 created by Ordinance the NAB (National Accountability Bureau) and special accountability courts to try exclusively corruption cases. These Courts are part of the national judicial system and operate under the Chief Justices of the High Courts of Pakistan. For up-to-date statistics on the number and type of cases files, convicted and acquitted, please refer to the Appendix. The NAB was created in part to deal with as much as $4 billion (PKR 208 billion) that was estimated to be owed to the country’s banks (all of which were state-owned at the time; several have since been privatized) by debtors, primarily from among the wealthy elite. The Musharraf Government stated that it would not target genuine business failures or small defaulters and does not appear to have done so. The NAB was given broad powers to prosecute corruption cases, and the accountability courts were expected to try such cases within 30 days. As originally promulgated, the ordinance prohibited courts from granting bail and gave the NAB chairman sole power to decide if and when to release detainees.

The ordinance also allowed those suspected by the State Bank of Pakistan of defaulting on government loans or of corrupt practices to be detained for 15 days without charge (renewable with judicial concurrence) and, prior to being charged, did not allow access to counsel. In accountability cases, there was a presumption of guilt, and conviction under the ordinance can result in 14 years’ imprisonment, fines, and confiscation of property. Originally, those convicted were set to disqualify from running for office or holding office for 10 years. In August 2000, the Government announced that persons with a court conviction would be barred from holding party office. This provision was applied during the general election to prevent certain candidates from entering the contest. REFERENCE: Special Corruption Courts in Asia
Shaheen Sehbai: Accountability of Benazir & Zardari.
http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2009/11/shaheen-sehbai-accountability-of.html

Perhaps supporters of PPP could explain me the comments of Mr Daniel Devaud, in the SGS, Cotecna case against Benazir Bhutto and Zardari. Are these genuine comments?

First Devud mentioned three payments of commissions;

“BOMER FINANCES INC. USD 8,190.085.00 (eight million one hundred ninety thousand eighty five dollars);

• NASSAM OVERSEAS INC. USD 3,807,338.00 (three million eight hundred seven thousand three hundred thirty eight dollars);

• Mr Jens Schlegelmilch USD 1,538,014.00 (one million five hundred thirty eight thousand and fourteen dollars);”

Then he makes these comments;

“Hans Fischer and Robert MASSEY, had consented to a sacrifice of more than USD 5 million for the sole purpose of making a donation, without compensation, to the couple Bhutto-Zardari.

If Benazir Bhutto had acted fairly, it would not be herself or her husband, but rather the State of Pakistan, which should have benefited, by example in the form of a discount on amounts billed by SGS and Cotecna, from the financial sacrifice that SGS and Cotecna were prepared to make;

That it is moreover not doubtful that the behavior of Benazir Bhutto and her husband is criminally reprehensible in Pakistan, as evidenced by the criminal procedures undertaken in this regard and to which the recent decision by the Supreme Court does not put an end;
That the above finding dispenses the judge to examine whether the behavior of Benazir Bhutto meets the constitutive elements of a crime of passive corruption, within the meaning of article 315a CP and the corresponding provisions of the Pakistani penal code, it being nevertheless remembered that Pakistan has always contended that the contracts concluded by Benazir Bhutto acting for Pakistan with SGS and Cotecna on 29 September 1994 were in violation, by Benazir Bhutto, of the duties of her office;

That until 1 May 2000, the active corruption of foreign public agents was not subject to prosecution in Switzerland, so that Jens Schlegelmilch cannot be reproached in Geneva for actions relating to such a corruption;

That he cannot either be blamed in Switzerland for the participation in unfair management of the Pakistani public interest or participation in the passive corruption of Benazir Bhutto (ATF 104 IV 239);”

Then the Devaud give very good news to Zardari, this news is probably the sole reason why the PPP goons don’t want to write the letter to the Swiss Government despite SC order. In clear violations of the constitution of Pakistan.

“That on the other hand, since the unfair management of public interests is a crime and that it does not matter whether this crime was committed abroad (art. 305bis, al. 3 CP), Mr Asif ali Zardari may be reproached in Switzerland for having.12 committed acts of laundering money arising from the criminal activities of Benazir Bhutto;

That by virtue of the principle of abstract double incrimination, which prevails in doctrine and in jurisprudence, the acts which, in Switzerland, were carried out in order to obstruct the identification of the origin, the discovery or the confiscation of assets of criminal origin are indeed punishable, even if the principal infraction did not occur in Switzerland (ACKERMANN, Einziehung, organisiertes Verbrechen und Geldwäscherei, vol. I, pp. 453 ss, n. 175 ss and citations);

That under Swiss law, the author of the principal crime may also be prosecuted for money laundering if he carries out actions proscribed by article 305bis CP (ATF 120 IV 329; 122 IV 211; 124 IV 276 = SJ 1999 p. 193);
That a fortiori he who, without being the so-called author of the principal crime, however contributes to its commission, must be prosecuted if, moreover, he participated in the putting into place of a structure having as its purpose that certain assets be paid according to modalities clearly destined to camouflage their real destination;”

And he writes further on the character of Benazir the following, mind you it was written before her death.

“For this is clearly the case in the present matter: Mrs. Benazir Bhutto not only carried out actions so that the agreement between BOMER FINANCE INC. be kept secret, but she also participated in the putting in place of companies which she knew would serve as a screen to camouflage the real recipients of funds which she would cause to be paid by SGS and Cotecna;

That use of “screen” companies is typical of acts punishable under article 305bis CP (ATF 119 IV 245; 124 IV 276 = SJ 1999 p. 193; CASSANI, Commentaire du droit penal suisse, vol. 9, pp. 72 ss, n. 31 ss; CORBOZ, Les principales infractions, vol. II, p. 312, n. 25);”

Devaud clarifies further the guilt of Benazir and the appropriate law applicable;

“That this subjective element is also met in the present case, notwithstanding the silence of Mrs Benazir Bhutto. Since:

• It is not necessary that the author knew -or should have known- with precision from which precise principal infraction came the assets in question, nor that he knew the author of this infraction: it suffices that the author had envisaged or accepted that these assets came from a behavior capable of a large sanction, or that they served as remuneration of such behavior (CASSANI, op. Cit., p. 8, n. 51);

• Mrs Benazir Bhutto knew that the “bribes” paid by SGS and Cotecna were destined for her and her husband;

• The precautions taken by Mr Asif Ali Zardari in concert with Mr Jens Schlegelmilch in order to keep the concluded agreement secret clearly demonstrate that he was aware of its illicit character;

That in summary, Mrs. Benazir Bhutto thus knew that she was acting in a criminally reprehensible manner by abusing her role in order to obtain for herself or her husband, considerable sums in the sole private interest of her family at the cost of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan;

That, in order to fix a penalty, the Investigating Magistrate has applied the criteria of article 63 CPS;

That the accused fulfills the objective and subjective conditions for the granting of a measure of probation, the Judge of Investigation esteeming that such a measure would be of such a nature to deter her from committing new infractions;

That the laundered assets may be confiscated provided that they are still in the possession of the launderer. If not, the confiscation may only bear on the consideration obtained by the author in remuneration for the committed infractions. If the assets which served as this remuneration are no longer available, notably because they have been mixed with the estate of the author, the confiscation may be replaced by the payment of a compensatory claim (art. 59. ch.1 and 2 CP; ATF O. of 19.2.2001 cons. 3c, n° 6S.667/2001; ATF 126 I 197 cons. 3c. bb; 122 IV 365= SJ 1999 I 419-420; CASSANI, “Le blanchiment d’ argent, un crime sans victime ?”; in Wirtschaft und Strafrecht, Zürich 2001, p. 498-499);”

At the end a coup and disgraceful comments for Ali Baba;

“That these confiscated amounts represent a sum of USD 11,734,665.00.

That the amounts frozen do not fully cover the sum to be reimbursed; therefore, Mrs. Benazir Bhutto shall be condemned, jointly with Mr Asif Ali Zardari, to the payment of the balance by way of a compensatory claim in the amount of USD 262,758.00, i.e. in Swiss francs, at the exchange rate 1.324, CHF 347,892.00.”

You the supporters of PPP say BB and Ali Baba are not guilty? The money was confiscated without guilt and without it was obtained by illegal means?

I think you have misled simple and uneducated Pakistanis enough, time to own up to your leaders guilt. This is just one example, where “Ali Baba” got caught because of the Laws of Switzerland. Only Ali Baba and Allah SWT knows how much he has accumulated as bribe and corruption in the three period your crooked and criminal party had been in power.

No wonder Baber Awan the game keeper turned poacher is making any and every excuse possible not to write the letter to the Swiss authorities. You should read what I re-produced here with open eyes and references provided by Mr. Daniel Devaud.

What make me laugh are the efforts made your crooked leaders, such legal stalwarts like Khosa and Awan, that the sentence was suspended. What they don’t tell to the innocent people of Pakistan, in the West the Courts give Suspended Sentences to almost all the people who have committed non-violent crimes. Due to the shortage of space in the Jails, and from the fact that it costs more to the state to keep a person in the Jail. These suspended sentences become active if the convict reoffends. Nevertheless, it is still a sentence and the person is a convict, an offender and a criminal having received a sentence.

At the end I ask all of you the Supporter of PPP some very simple questions;

1- Why Ali Baba have so many compaies set up in Tax Heavan?

2- What Business activities carrid out by these Companies?

3-Have these Companies and Income received by these Companies declared by Ali Baba?

4- If it is please show us, and also show how much tax he has paid on the Incom received by these companies, any where in the world?

5- Is he not the citizen and resident of Pakistan? Does he decalare all his income from around the world on his tax returns?

6- If he pays taxes on these Income in any part of the World , he should still declare it and follow the procedure of Doube taxation.

Like I said many times before, Khosa, Awan , Faisal et al, had it easy in Pakistani media. Give me a chance and I will render them naked to the Public in minutes.

“Now that you know so much, please explain the story of USD 60 million.”

What about it? Why you want to mix apples and oranges? I only responded to the topic in hand. Explain if BB and Ali Baba are guilty or not? And why USD 11 million were confiscated, if they were earned legally and legitimately?

“Also can you let us know, that BB and AAZ had taken bribes from SGS and Cotecna, who are both headquartered in Switzerland, how come no action has ever been taken against them?”

Did you failed to notice the comments of Devour? He said, if this discount was paid directly on the deal, it would have benefited the Pakistani nation. That the companies were ready to offer the discount, but BB and Ali Bbab filled up their own pockets.

Another poser, let’s say, if a Policeman in Pakistan asked you for a bribe, who would be dismissed and put behind the bar, you or the Policeman? Get real my friend. You should be ashamed of yourself to support such crooks.

I asked these questions from your “High Commissioner” Wajid ShamsulHassan. His reluctance exactly like yours put me off from your Party and from Pakistani Politics and Politicians for good. No wonder that despicable person was marshalling the troops in Switzerland to get hold of the evidence on behalf of his master the Ali Baba. This is the reality of your Party and its big wigs; you should seriously examine your thought process. In any other civilized country, such corrupt persons should be thrown out immediately from the party. But in your corrupt party they are protected.

But supporters like you waste so much time and efforts to prove them innocent. I am afraid; their acts are so vicious that you can never ever succeed to defend them against someone like me. Like I said before, you cannot use canned logic against me.

I give you another poser, your party say, Zardari is immune, but according to this verdict Zardari is a convicted criminal. When he took office he was convicted, therefore, he was not illegible for the post of the President. He is not immune from the prosecution as a President; he is disqualified from the post of the President. Only in Pakistan these things would be allowed and you keep misleading poor uneducated and innocent people by lies and deceptions while looting the national wealth and filling up your own pockets, PPP truly is a Permanent plunder Party.

Akmal,

So why don’t you quote that decision of the Appellant court, you say thrown out the decision of Devarou?

As for the article, that does not say anything about the appeal, it says, the chief prosecutor withdraws the investigation. This was done in August 2008 according to the Article. This was result of Pakistani Government withdrawing from the case, and ceased to be the part in the investigation, after Qayyum Malik, another blot on the conscious of humanity wrote that infamous letter.

This letter is the bone of contention if you have failed to notice by now. That’s why; your crooks and goons do not want to write to Swiss Government to withdraw that letter. I say if there was no evidence then why it was withdrawn after NRO by Q Malik? And why your PPP is reluctant to write the letter despite repeated orders by the SCP?

I have never seen so much reluctant for a non existent case and lack of evidence. Babar Awan “the Crook”, the poacher in the guise of game keeper, violator of Law acting as guardian of law, said this letter will be written “over my dead body”.

But you see all the efforts of PPP are back firing, no matter what, your crooks would be held responsible for not following SCP orders and refusing to write the letter. Now SCP has widen the net, it says, all the proceedings in the foreign countries, which were stop due to NRO should be re-open. Let me give you a snap shot of the SCP decision.

In Para IX of its judgement on NRO, the Supreme Court of Pakistan said,

“That since the NRO stands declared void ab initio, therefore, any actions taken or suffered under the said law are also non existent in law and since the communications addressed by Malik Muhammad Qayyum to various foreign fora/authorities/courts withdrawing the requests earlier made by the Government of Pakistan for Mutual Legal Assistance; surrendering the status of Civil Party; abandoning the claims to the allegedly laundered moneys lying in foreign countries including Switzerland, have also been declared by us to be unauthorised and illegal communications and consequently of no legal effect, therefore, it is declared that the initial requests for Mutual Legal Assistance; securing the status of Civil Party and the claims lodged to the allegedly laundered moneys lying in foreign countries, including Switzerland, are declared never to have been withdrawn. Therefore, the Federal Government and other concerned authorities are ordered to take immediate steps to seek revival of the said requests, claims and status.”

Akmal, the order is for all proceedings in foreign lands not just Switzerland, no wonder Babar “the corrupt” Awan said, “over my dead body”.

I am sure you know of “Rockwood estate”, Ali Baba denied he owned the property for years, but when it was auctioned by the creditors; his legal representative claimed Ali Baba is the legal benefactor of the money. The proceeds from the sale of this house are still in liquidator’s account. It was about to be transferred to Pakistan, but Musharaf sent NAB officers and withdraw Pakistan claim to this money, after he started to negotiate NRO with BB, to show his willingness and eagerness to forgo what was national wealth. He acted like it was his personal fortune which he can forgive against the corrupt leaders of PPP.

Do you know how much money this transaction has in the liquidator account? And what about the lies perpetrated by Ali Baba and BB for almost 10 years, that they do not own this estate? And yeah for good measure, this estate was bought in the name of different entities and trusts in tax heavens like Jersey and Liechtenstein. Isn’t amazing, Ali Baba, always do deals hiding behind these shady companies, registered in the palaces which are famous for laundering money and hiding illicit wealth?

Then there is issue of case in the Spain for “oil for food” fiasco by BB and likes of Rehman Malik. That case is also alive and kicking. Rehman Malik is the owner of various fast food franchises in the UK, who was earning a meagre salary as DG in IB. But surprisingly, he had such a good luck he managed to build a massive empire on his few thousand rupees meagre salary.

We know, for the corrupt PPP and its supporters, it is literally pouring not just raining. When we the mere mortals get watery rain, they have shower of money from the heaven.

How long they and you the supporters of PPP are going to fool the People of Pakistan? Can’t you see the writings on the wall?

Having dogs my full life, now specially as an adult, I can honestly say that the unconditional love of our pets is one of the greatest wonders of our lifestyles every single day. Their love, expression, kisses and feelings is stunning on a scale you have to experience to understand. Individuals can learn a lot from dogs. They’re a treasure.