BUSH AIDS AND ABETS MUSHARRAF IN CONTEMPT OF PAKISTANI CONSTITUTION

Dan Froomkin in his blog White House Watch in today's washingtonpost.com refers me to a story in McClatchy Newspapers by Jonathan S. Landay and Warren P. Strobel on Bush's efforts to keep Pervez Musharraf in the Pakistani government even after his party suffered a huge defeat in Sunday's elections.

Write Landay and Strobel:

"The Bush administration is pressing the opposition leaders who defeated Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf to allow the former general to retain his position, a move that Western diplomats and U.S. officials say could trigger the very turmoil the United States seeks to avoid.

"U.S. officials, from President Bush on down, said this week that they think Musharraf, a longtime U.S. ally, should continue to play a role, despite his party's rout in parliamentary elections Monday and his unpopularity in the volatile, nuclear-armed nation."

It seems Bush, Cheney and the rest of their gang are so enamored of that dictator Musharraf that they are putting pressure on the winning Pakistani parties to keep Musharraf in the ruling circle. The worst part of this is that Bush is also counselling against reinstatement of the Supreme Court Justices that Musharraf illegally forced out of office last year in his quest to remain Pakistani president.

Report Strobel and Landay:

"The U.S. is urging the Pakistani political leaders who won the elections to form a new government quickly and not press to reinstate the judges whom Musharraf ousted last year, Western diplomats and U.S. officials said Wednesday. If reinstated, the jurists likely would try to remove Musharraf from office."

This is outrageous. Talk about destroying any semblance of the rule of law. Bush aids and abets Musharraf in this dismissal of the judges when their decisions go against Musharraf's personal interests. And we have not even mentioned Musharraf's use of force against the peaceful demonstrations of the judges and lawyers when he had the police beat them with canes and arrest them. Now Bush counsels don't reinstate them because then they will rule that you, Musharraf, occupy the presidency in violation of the Pakistan Constitution. Bush shows his contempt for the Pakistan Constitution, notwithstanding his constant mantra of democracy being the gift of the Almighty for all.

"Bush's policy of hanging on to Musharraf has caused friction between the White House and the State Department, with some career diplomats and other specialists arguing that the administration is trying to buck the political tides in Pakistan, U.S. officials said. . .

"One Western diplomat said, however, that the strategy could backfire if Pakistanis feel betrayed after voting to kick Musharraf from office. "This is dangerous," said the diplomat. The officials spoke to McClatchy on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to discuss internal government debates.

"The effort to persuade Pakistan's newly elected parliament not to reinstate the judges could be perceived in Pakistan as a U.S. attempt to keep Musharraf in power after voters overwhelmingly rejected his Pakistan Muslim League-Q political party.

""There is going to be an uprising against the people who were elected" should opposition parties agree to the plan, warned Athar Minallah, the lawyer of ousted Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, whom Musharraf has under house arrest."

MUSHARRAF MUST REINSTATE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES ILLEGALLY DISMISSED

I fully agree with Juan Cole in his observations at Informed Comment on the situation in Pakistan given the tragic assassination of Benazir Bhutto. If Gen. Pervez Musharraf is to remain in power and keep the backing of the United States, he must restore the rule of law. This means restoring the Supreme Court Justices, including former Chief Justice Ifthikar Chaudhry now under house arrest, to their rightful judicial positions before he illegally dismissed them. This also means freeing the lawyers and judges that Musharraf locked up after their street demonstrations in favor of the rule of law. Further, it means Musharraf must acknowledge that he will follow and respect the Pakistani Constitution, something that he has trashed whenever it did not fit his political ambitions.

Writes Juan Cole:

"In order to get through this crisis, Bush must insist that the Pakistani Supreme Court, summarily dismissed and placed under house arrest by Musharraf, be reinstated. The PPP must be allowed to elect a successor to Ms. Bhutto without the interference of the military. Early elections must be held, and the country must return to civilian rule. Pakistan's population is, contrary to the impression of many pundits in the United States, mostly moderate and uninterested in the Taliban form of Islam. But if the United States and "democracy" become associated in their minds with military dictatorship, arbitrary dismissal of judges, and political instability, they may turn to other kinds of politics, far less favorable to the United States. Musharraf may hope that the Pakistani military will stand with him even if the vast majority of people turn against him. It is a forlorn hope, and a dangerous one, as the shah of Iran discovered in 1978-79. ' "

MUSHARRAF CLAIMS HE SAVED PAKISTAN; REALLY HE DESTROYED RULE OF LAW

Pervez Musharraf says by suspending Pakistan's Constitution he saved the country from destruction and destabilization. The BBC reports:

"Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf has said his emergency rule saved the country from destabilisation."

I guess Musharraf means "saved the country from the rule of law." That's what Musharraf did - he fired the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Ifthikar Chaudhry, beat and then locked up protesting lawyers, and by doing so, he destroyed the rule of law in Pakistan.

Musharraf is just like Bush. To hell with the rights and privileges of the constitution, lock up enemies and throw away the key, destroy individual rights and liberties. After all, he knows what's best.

If a court refuses to go along, fire the judges, deny them pensions and put in judges that will do your bidding.

WHERE IS BUSH'S OUTRAGE OVER MUSHARRAF'S KICKING OUT PAKISTAN'S SUPREME COURT?

The New York Times runs an article today written by Jane Perlez on the mess in Pakistan.

Talking about Musharraf's illegal and unjustified firing of the Chief Justice of the Pakistan Supreme Court because the court would not go along with Musharraf's bid to remain in power in violation of the Pakistan Constitution, Perlez writes:

"Three other leading lawyers remain under house arrest, including Aitzaz Ahsan, the president of the Supreme Court Bar Association.
"Sixty of about 100 judges who served on the Supreme Court and four provincial high courts have been ordered to remain in their homes because they have refused to take the new oath of office under emergency rule, according to Wajihuddin Ahmed, a former Supreme Court judge.
"The chief justice and his court were the centerpiece of Mr. Musharraf’s emergency decree. The president accused the court, and Mr. Chaudhry in particular, of being ready to block his re-election, and dismissed the entire bench."

Chief Justice Chaudhry let it be known that the court would not agree with Musharraf's power grab, and that the court would rule against him. So Musharraf kicked out the members of the court and replaced them with his own people.

Yet Bush and Rice and the government of the United States has remained oddly quiet about this destruction of the rule of law in Pakistan. I thought Bush was the great proponent of "freedom" and "democracy"? Here when it comes to a supposed "ally," Bush says not one word of protest.

Writes Perlez:

"The United States and other Western governments have stopped short of calling for the restoration of the Supreme Court, even as they have pressed Mr. Musharraf to lift emergency rule in time for the elections.
"The Western governments have been reluctant to insist on the return of the old Supreme Court because, like Mr. Musharraf, they say Mr. Chaudhry was interfering in the executive branch, a Western diplomat said."

Wait! Where is Perlez getting her information? She writes that western governments have not insisted on Chaudhry's re-instatement because "they say Mr. Chaudhry was interfering in the executive branch . . ."

There is absolutely no credible evidence presented so far to show that Chief Justice Chaudhry was "interfering in the executive branch." Furthermore, who is this western diplomat who Ms. Perlez uses as a source for this statement? And how come Perlez does not offer any challenge to this charge?

MUSHARRAF BLAMES CHIEF JUSTICE FOR HIS OWN CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS

In taking the oath to protect and defend Pakistan's Constitution, President Pervez Musharraf blames the recent constitutional crisis on Ifthikar Chaudhry, the deposed Chief Justice of Pakistan's Supreme Court.

Carlotta Gall writes in today's The New York Times:

"Mr. Musharraf defended his record in power, saying that he had always intended to lead the country toward democracy and to remove his uniform, but had to act in the interest of Pakistan’s stability.

"He said he had to impose emergency rule on Nov. 3, and delay removing his uniform, because of a clash between state institutions, namely the judiciary and the government, and the growing threat of terrorism.


"He blamed Mr. Chaudhry, the former chief justice, for derailing his planned transition to democracy and suggested it was a conspiracy hatched against him. (Emphases added).


"“I feel this derailment could have led the nation to chaos,” Mr. Musharraf said. He said he had not wanted to impose the emergency rule but in light of a growing threat from terrorism and the clashes between the judiciary and the executive, he had acted in the country’s interests.


"“This was an extraordinary circumstance, ladies and gentlemen, it needed extraordinary measures to control,” he said. “No half-hearted measures could have delivered.”

Musharraf blames the constitutional crisis on the Chief Justice because Chaudhry would not go along with Musharraf's scheme to remain head of the army at the same time Musharraf was running for president.


"Let's kill all the lawyers [and judges]" is the operative phrase when the king cannot get them to rule in his favor. And this is what Musharraf has done. Because the Pakistani Bar would not support his power-grabbing ambitions, he has imprisoned them and had his police attack them. Then he tries in Bush-like fashion to blame them for the destruction of the rule of law.

BUSH REMAINS SILENT ON ATTACK ON RULE OF LAW IN PAKISTAN

George Bush needs to come out and condemn Pervez Musharraf for locking up the lawyers and judges in Pakistan. If Bush is so enamoured with "freedom" and "democracy," how come he remains silent regarding Iftikhar Chaudhry? Chaudhry is or was the Chief Justice of the Pakistani Supreme Court who has been unconstitutionally thrown out of office by that dictator Musharraf because he would not go along with Musharraf's scheme to stay in office. How come Bush remains mute when it comes to all the lawyers and judges now in detention because they oppose Musharraf's attempt to illegally remain in power?

Bush's stress on "freedom" and "democracy" are just cynical phrases devoid of meaning, designed solely to make Bush look like another George Washington for purposes of establishing his "legacy." Nevertheless, Bush remains silent on the outrageous attack on the rule of law in Pakistan. This shows how cynical and hollow Bush truly is.

MUSHARRAF CONTINUES TO ATTACK CHIEF JUSTICE FOR NOT LETTING HIM BE BOTH ARMY LEADER AND PRESIDENT

Gen. Pervez Musharraf continues to attack Ifthikar Chaudhry, Chief Justice of the Pakistan Supreme Court. The BBC reports:

"Military ruler Gen Pervez Musharraf will not entertain letting former Supreme Court Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry back into his job.

"On Sunday he lashed out at Mr Chaudhry again, calling him corrupt and a hurdle in the way of the smooth working of the government.

"He told journalists in Islamabad that the entire problem of the judiciary boiled down to one individual, Mr Chaudhry, who he sacked as part of the state of emergency introduced on 3 November. "

Talk about subverting the rule of law! Is there a quicker way than dismissing the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court? Musharraf cannot get the Pakistan courts to go along with letting him be at the same time head of the Pakistan Army and also President. So Musharraf, in effect, cuts the head off of Pakistan's judicial system.

All lawyers from around the world, from whatever country, ought to feel revulsion at what Musharraf is doing. And where is Bush and Cheney and Rice? They should be condemning this assault on Pakistan's rule of law.

RULE OF LAW WINS OUT IN PAKISTAN TODAY

Instead of falling down and rolling over before Pakistan's leader, Pervez Musharraf, the Supreme Court of Pakistan stood up for the rule of law and re-instated Iftikar Chaudhry as Chief Justice of the court. Chaudhry had been suspended by Musharraf because Chaudhry resisted allowing Musharraf to remain both president and army chief in violation of the Pakistan constitution. See my post on March 21, 2007,and my post on May 5, 2007.

This re-instatement is a victory for all of Pakistan's lawyers who took Chaudhry's cause to the streets in all the major cities of Pakistan. Musharraf tried to arrest many, had the state police break into lawyers' offices, and otherwise harassed the demonstrators.

But Musharraf lost his unconstitutional argument today, and now the Supreme Court is once again being led by Justice Chaudhry. The rule of law has won out.

GEN. MUSHARRAF RESCUES SELF FROM POLITICAL DEFEAT BY GOING AFTER ISLAMIC RADICALS IN RED MOSQUE

Aamer Ahmed Khan writes for the BBC that Pakistan's Pervez Musharraf has emerged from the Red Mosque uprising as the West's best hope against Islamic extremism. This was the same General Musharraf who two weeks ago was fighting for his political life as a result of his peremptory firing of the Chief Justice of the Pakistan Supreme Court, Iftikhar Chaudhry. Se my post here on May 7, 2007, and here on May 5, 2007.

With a perceptive and analytical pen, Khan writes:

"The war drums being beaten by the opposition at home were reaching a crescendo. [Musharraf's] battle with the country's chief justice had taken a serious toll on his image as a military man who loathes the pettiness of everyday politics. More importantly, perhaps, his Western allies seemed to be getting increasingly impatient with his seeming inability to deal decisively with Islamist extremists."

Musharraf was then faced with the "moral police," young students of the Red Mosque, who were going around confronting music store owners and women working in massage parlors.

"Demanding strict enforcement of Sharia (Islamic law), Red Mosque clerics had let loose moral squads on the capital to "prevent vices and promote virtue" - a concept first institutionalised by the Taleban in Afghanistan.

"These moral squads, consisting of armed male and female students, were going around the city threatening music shop owners, and kidnapping women over allegations of operating brothels."

For the general, this confrontation was a lucky distraction from his undemocratic dealings with the chief justice. But Musharraf did not want to go in and kill everyone in the mosque for fear of being called a slayer of his own people.

Writes Khan:

"But every time they [the clerics] took the law into their own hands, the government had opted for negotiations, arguing that any use of force was likely to lead to bloodshed.

"Emboldened by the government's perceived pussy-footing, Red Mosque clerics kept raising their public profile until they became a major embarrassment for the government.

"However, President Musharraf kept advocating restraint on the basis of intelligence reports which warned of the presence of a large number of suicide bombers inside the mosque and its affiliated seminary."

The BBC and Khan report that Musharraf's decision to use force occurred when the "moral police" arrested a number of Chinese women working in Islamabad allegedly in a massage parlor:

"The turning point clearly was the abduction of the Chinese massage parlour girls," says a senior diplomat in Islamabad.

"We know that the Chinese sent a very strong message that they could take losses in Balochistan or the tribal belt but were not prepared to see their citizens abducted and tortured bang in the heart of the capital."

Gen. Musharraf emerges from this clash with the students and clerics of the Red Mosque in a far stronger political position that he was only two weeks ago. Then he appeared anti-democratic and despotic. Today he seems to be the West's last hope against Islamic clerics and fundamentalist students.

Khan writes:

"As the nation inches closer to elections later in the year and a decision from General Musharraf on his dual role as president and army chief, he will be focusing all his energies on getting just one message across: He is still the West's best bet against radical Islam who can move decisively as and when needed.

"Whatever the level of truth or reality in this assertion, it is a political reality he is desperate to create as he heads for a make-or-break phase in his eighth year in power. "

CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS IN PAKISTAN OVER SUPREME COURT JUSTICE

I wrote on May 5, 2007, of General Pevez Musharraf's seeming belittlement of the Pakistani Constitution, as indicated in his 2006 autobiography, In the Line of Fire. Yesterday, Al Jazeera quotes Iftikhar Chaudry, the Supreme Court Chief against whom Musharraf has brought charges, describing Musharraf's actions as being in opposition to the Constitution:

"But Chaudhry's message was clear. He said: "Nations and states which are based on dictatorship instead of the supremacy of the constitution, the rule of law and protection of basic rights get destroyed.""

Al Jazeera reports that when Chaudhry arrived in Lahore for his hearing on the charges, thousands of Pakistanis met him on the streets, many of whom were lawyers.

"Pakistanis waited through the night to offer a rousing welcome to the judge who defied the country's president as he arrived in Lahore on Sunday.

"Iftikhar Chaudhry, the chief justice, later spoke in the compound of the Lahore High Court to thousands of lawyers, 17 of Punjab province's 23 judges, and opposition activists outside on the street."


(Photo from Reuters. Chaudhry received a hero's welcome when he arrived in Lahore to address lawyers on Sunday.)

DISAPPOINTMENT OVER MUSHARRAF'S ABUSE OF RULE OF LAW

When I read Pervez Musharraf's 2006 autobiography, In the Line of Fire, I was perplexed by the following on pp. 152-153:

"If the nation goes, so does the constitution. But if the constitution especially a flawed one, goes, the nation still remains and can always give itself another constitution or correct the flaws in the first one. Thus our ultimate duty is to preserve the nation. The choice may be stark, but it is obvious: Pakistan comes first - always."

Pakistan's president says the nation comes before its constitution. Do away with the constitution if it means saving the nation.

Is this why General Musharraf feels unconstrained in attacking the Pakistani Chief Justice? Today the BBC reports that the Pakistani government has detained "hundreds" who had turned out to support the ex-Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry.

"Hundreds of people have been arrested in Pakistan to prevent them attending a rally in support of the ousted chief justice, activists say."

When I read Musharraf's book, notwithstanding the passage quote above, I came away with a overall sense that he was an honest, intellectually and morally capable leader. I read with interest his exploits in the Army and his brushes with death, such as being in an airplane crash and the target of several assassination attempts. I also was struck with his commitment to a democratic Pakistan.

However, I am truly disappointed about Musharraf's lack of respect for the Pakistani courts and judges. This respect forms the basis for a rule of law, where an independent judiciary is free and unfettered to protect minority rights. Musharraf has sacked the Chief Justice and brought charges against him. Pakistan's lawyers have protested and as a consequence suffered arrests and beatings. (See my previous post on March 21, 2007.)