Exactly, nothing is perfect and so is the law. Only thing constitution is for is to guarantee the rights of citizen and protect them. Only thing I am saying is this amnesty is too controversial decision and does not have support of lot of Neapalese people. It is personal (as per court) and giving amnesty to any criminal coz his party is on government is not right. We need to leave behind all the violence but criminals should be brought to justice without any doubt. If it was deceison on consensus and consistent with the public opinion, it would be a different story. The point it any party CANNOT use its executive power to protect its member from criminal prosecution. People might interpret law according to their need and make it legal but ethically its plain WRONG. And you said for the better future of country, we should leave this issue behind and start working for economy. I am with you on this point but I would want to see the things done in a right way. Thats how you build a country with bringing justice to the society and treating all citizens equally. I know this is not the ideal world but we should never give up to make it ideal.

 goddamn, you are 100% right on ethical matter. But that's the subject I have asked the participants to not touch. I was asking the legality of the decision. Is it allowed by our constitution? Laws and ethics though related are different. Law is how we quantify our ethical standards. Law is a set of rules. It's well documented in the constituion. Can you say the same about ethics? We use law to define our ethics and morales. Law is a measuring yardstick of our ethics. If the decision is well within the bounds of our law however the decision is not ethical then perhaps the law is flawed and the law needs to be changed.Thats why I ask you to make your voice(ethics) heard so that unethical behavior doesn't take the form of the law.
  did you vote in our last CA election in Nepal? do you vote at all? Please respond.

No, coz I wasn't in Nepal.

There is something called ethics. You have right to listen to music but should not disturb your neighbours by loud music. Just because you can doesnot mean you can or you should. You can walk naked in San Francisco, so will you walk naked?

 Ojaswi, I have never denied the existence of ethics. If you read above, I have not only admitted the existence of ethics, I have professed its quantification in the form of a set of rules called law. And to your question, here is my answer. Okay someone walked naked in SF. Did he violate any establishment or mores?
Goddamn, do you vote at all? What was the last time you voted in Nepal?

You avoided my question, there is only yes or no answer to this.

Eastsidaz I have been reading some of your posting and you have repeated your question multiple times so I wanted to respond.

Noone's arguing or questioning the legality of the move here!

You have not understood the greivances against BRB.

What people are dissatisfied about is how BRB who claimed to fight for justice for the masses is being a hypocrite when he wants to pardon his comrades for murder and make convicted murderer a minister.

That's all.

You've brought up the point about phone calls and those things are fine and good if they are able to advantageous to the public. However it is yet to be seen.

What has been clearly seen is that BRB who demanded justice for common peasants and who seemingly fought to bring down a feudal system is now openly denying justice for a commoner which the Nepali court had granted. He is seemingly bringing back his own feudal system by pardoning his own fellows at the cost of justice and what he had supposedly fought against.

Totally agree eith grgdai on why ppl are so pissed with baburam.

EastSidaz, i want to ask you one question and thats all.
Suppose a wealthy man X dies and leaves a ton of money behind with illetrate wife. Since its a lot of money that can create a lot of jobs and opportunities, we should keep the property. Its good cause most of the people will benifit from that. Anyway she is illetrate and can't fight. For the sake of collective future we can throw ethics out of the window. Right????

Eastsidaz, you just highlighted half the text I provided earlier, you forgot to highlight rest of the sentence " this very provision cannot be interpreted as unlimited and discretionary, the release said, adding," If the provision is interpreted as unlimited discretionary power, there is the risk that perpetrators involved serious crimes under national and international law like extra judicial killing, involuntary disappearance, torture and rape could be pardoned and the perpetrators can escape without punishment."

Ironically, the rest half of the sentence carries essence of the whole argument.

So, this preety much speaks length about the level of ethics and morals you carry and reflects the mirror image of the selective justice system that you believe in. Justice should be equal and for everyone.

 grgdai, I have no disagreement with what you just said above. Well then, we were just looking at the case differently. If the decision was perfectly legal, I have nothing to argue about.
 Ojaswi, okay I will walk naked next time I visit SF if you care to give me the name of the street. I dont think I can walk naked all over SF because it is a big city. Very cold in winters.
  Vasudev, I highlighted the exact words contained within the article in our constitution. I did not bother to include the opinion of Human Rights Group and their suggestion on how the words should be interpreted since I don't think they have the authority to tell me or you how our constitution can be and can not be interpreted. Nepal is a sovereign nation. We can listen to their suggestions but we as a sovereign nation don't have to take their orders.
  Vasudev, why do you bring my character back to the topic again and again? My character, personal trait has nothing to do with the topic.  I have asked the participants not to do that. We are discussing Baburam's decision here so let's not sway otherwise.

You have literally been raped here. Case closed. Since you were asking for street name, I will give you " Castro."

Haha all ado for nothing?? Noone was questioning the legality of this case, he butts his head in every conversation and challanges whether or not it was legal. Badmouths everyone who disagrees with him.

And now like a dog with tail under his belly, he agrees with what everyone was talking about in the first place.

Bravo! and now you may sit in a corner and STFU.

Haha what a stupido. Sabai manche aagra ko gura gardai baseka thiye. yo moro chai eklai gagra ko kura gardai. afnai tauko ma gagra futaudai raicha. haha kasto free entertainment. Yeslai ta latobungo bhannu parne

 Ojaswi, again. I am not the topic of discussion here. Refute my reasoning if you will. You said I am getting raped here. I know that you know it is just the contrary. I thought you were in UK, how do you know about Castro street. I don't hear good thing about that street unless you are a gaadu.
Goddamn, I have clearly defined ethics. There is a set of rules called law between ethics and its implementation. Do you think Nepalese law allows you to confiscate property from a widow and use it for business? It doesn't. Because our ethics doesn't allow it. So we have quantified this ethics by creating a law that forbids any such acts.
  Ayo arko dhurmuse bad boy. Jahan pani thyakka last ma audo rahechha. Yo dekhne bittikai eutako bumper sticker yaad auchha.
'Never underestimate the strength of stupid people in large numbers' bhanne.

Now that Eastsidaz has understood the topic of this discussion ie 'Baburam is not the real hero'. Can we move on from the side bickerings of misunderstood questions of legality and such?

Ur response couldn't be better.
. Do you think Nepalese law allows you to confiscate property from a widow and use it for business? It doesn't.

Totally agree and if government can't take widow's right to property, it can't take her right to justice either. Period.

 Goddamn, I want you to go and vote. When you don't vote you have lost your voice. Wrong people win the election and they create laws that run contrary to your ethics. Then you can't be blaming the law because it's too late. Do you respect the law? If you respect the law, then you should respect the decision too. As you have found out, this decision was well within the bounds of law. Now how this kind of behavior is permitted by our legal system. It is for you to find out and change.

I will vote whenever I can and if only if I see a competent policy. But if I don't vote and something wrong happens, i will still try whatever i can do to protest it. Conflict is at the heart of democracy and i don't believe in:
1: We should move ahead coz it will slow the momentum. Then blame PM, he brought the issue at the wrong time. If this is the problem let finish the peace process first and then decide the amnesty later. Dhungel is a criminal and he can wait. Its not like an innocent man waiting for a pardon.
2: Its legal and PM can do it. You answered this question yourself. I replaced victim sister's right to justice with widow's right to property. You quickly said its unethical and law of Nepal won't allow to do it. I want people of Nepal to have same confidence that they will get justice no matter what. You know that law comes with ethics as power comes with responsibility. Yo
3: we are 100 years behind western country and we should learn to live by it. I give you 100 more years and talk about the US constitution which is around 200 years older.. Do you think Nepalese law allows you to confiscate property from a widow and use it for business? It doesn't. It also values individual over government (Its different that it had issues with racism). By saying we are under developed and we need to learn to abide by unethical decision then I have to say nothing.
4. You voted and did your job, so stop complaining and ignore everything whatever government does. You know why Nepal became Republic, to safe guard the rights of minority. So that 51% do not kick other 49% out. Every minority gets equal rights as every one else. It does includes right to protest. And about going to the representatives, sajha is so popular so i am doing the same thing here. I think more attention it gets bigger the voice is. I didn't vote that doesn't take my right from protesting.

  I can't figure out how all the things you said is relevant to  the things I said. You don't know much about the timetable of Dhungel case, do you? I don't see how this case will go differently just because it's not what you want. There are legal ways. I don't understand why us Nepalese don't give a damn about the law. You did not really understand my definition of law and ethics. Laws come from ethics. After laws are established. Law is the top dog. If a legal decision is not ethical, then you don't change the decision. You change the law and it takes time. Voting means excercising our right. It directly effects the formation of law afterwards. Its surprising how you take voting so lightly. Maobadis won the maximum seats in last election. Hence they have been able to come up with this kind of decision. You don't see anything wrong with that. All you gonnna do is protest. I expected better than this bhatti ko neta statetements from you. 
  If you are in the US then you have seen how powerful lawyers are. Law is the topdog here. OJ Simpson was freed by the court. Now does he give a damn if someone knows he is a murderer. You can't even call him a murderer or else he can file a lawsuit against you.

All those four points are the arguments you made directly or indirectly and am just telling you whats wrong with it. I have pretty much figured out that this case will not go the way I want. Like you said law is the bigger dog and it will be thw winner. I don't doubt that but this issue is not a small issue as we are still in transitional process and every single decision now will affect the deceisons that are going to be made. This is not a issue that this government should have taken right now and we should not let it go easily so that other hundreds of cases will follow otherwise. I wasn't there but I understand the desperate need of people for the change. They voted maobadi and they made the government and other came and then another. I don't take the vote lightly but its one of the problem of Nepal. Most of the parties get the votes without outlining their policy. Now back to the point, I understand Maoists have the majority but there's other parties in the congress too who have won the seats. There are opposition parties in the congress ( not NC) too. One party cannot take unilateral decision when it comes to setting the tone of future Nepal. When transitional period is over and they want to take deceison, that will be okay. What they are doing now is grabing opportunity to work for the party while they should be working for Nepal. When u become PM of Nepal, you should be working for Nepal not any party.