SEYMOUR HERSH CLAIMS DICK CHENEY ORDERED ASSASSINATIONS AROUND WORLD BY SPECIAL FORCES SOLDIERS

Seymour Hersh was on Terri Gross' interview program today on NPR. Gross asked Hersh asked about his claims that there was a special operations force answerable only to Dick Cheney that went around the world assassinating people Cheney decided were threats to the United States.

One of Terri Gross's first questions astounded me. She asked what the big deal was about because in her view that was the job of special operations, to assassinate "bad guys." How can Gross so cavalierly accept that American military forces sneak into foreign countries and assassinate their targets? How many innocent people are caught up in this nightmare and killed?

Everyone is entitled to a fair hearing before an impartial court, with right to a lawyer and to present a defense including evidence on one's behalf. Now you might respond that this is not a legal right to people not citizens of the United States, at least not in U.S. courts. But I would argue that it is a basic human right belonging to everyone in the world.

The rule of law means that we don't approve of people going around and taking the law in their own hands, by being the judge and executioner. Or are there some including Dick Cheney and George W. Bush who think that the rule of law ends at the borders of the U.S.?

Hersh commented that he did not blame any of the special forces, they were just doing their job. This is just as outrageous as Terri Gross accepting that assassination was the job of American soldiers. Hersh may not blame these special forces but I do. A soldier just can't rely on the defense that he or she is just following orders. There is a decision to be made, is this moral or right? Do I have responsibility for taking someone's life without giving the person the right to speak in his own defense? Just because Dick Cheney says the target is a "terrorist," does that give a right to kill him without more? I don't think so.

PAKISTAN'S LAWYERS PREVAIL, CHIEF JUSTICE CHAUDRY TO BE RE-INSTATED

At last we see the Pakistan government allow the reinstatement of Pakistani supreme court chief justice Iftikhar Chaudhry. Former president and military dictator Pervez Musharraf booted Chaudhry out of office for refusing to rule in the general's favor. Talk about the rule of law! And I thought the era of absolute monarchs had disappeared in the 18th century. Musharraf's actions amounting to "get rid of the judge who won't rule in my favor" evokes memories of Henry II's famous line about Thomas Becket in 1170, "who will rid me of this troublesome priest?"

The new Pakistan leader and president, Asif Ali Zardari, whose deceased spouse was the assassinated Benazir Bhutto, continued in opposing Chaudhry's reinstatement. Why? Because he was worried that Chaudhry would rule against him too. Fortunately, because of the street protests and marches led by Pakistan's lawyers, Zardari has now backed down and agreed to Chaudhry coming back.

Note that Zardari has shown himself as bad as Musharraf in trying to quell peaceful protests by the lawyers with canes, clubs and threats of imprisonment.

BUSH ORDERS SECRET RAIDS INTO PAKISTAN

Eric Schmitt and Mark Mazzetti write in today's The New York Times that President Bush has given secret orders allowing American incursions and attacks on the tribal areas in northwestern Pakistan.

This is outrageous and another example of Bush's flouting of principles of international law. Bush may have the authorization under American law by virtue of the AUMF passed in October 2001, but it is an affront to the rule of law in Pakistan, and will have the certain effect of creating even more animosity of Pakistanis towards Americans.

Report Schmitt and Mazzetti:

"The classified orders signal a watershed for the Bush administration after nearly seven years of trying to work with Pakistan to combat the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and after months of high-level stalemate about how to challenge the militants’ increasingly secure base in Pakistan’s tribal areas. "

No country is allowed to enter another sovereign country without permission or conduct military raids against nationals living in that country. I don't care whether it is done for a good purpose or not. This simply violates all the provisions of international law and the rules of the United Nations.

The alternative is the dark world of Bush and Cheney where everything goes and international law evaporates into just another meaningless platitude. And no, the argument that the world is different after September 11 is not sufficient to create a lawless violent world where the "forces of good" are aligned against the "forces of evil, and the "good guys" can do anything they want outside the realm of law to the "bad guys."

Mazzetti and Schmitt write:

"Pakistan’s top army officer said Wednesday that his forces would not tolerate American incursions like the one that took place last week and that the army would defend the country’s sovereignty “at all costs.” . . ."

"Unilateral action by the American forces does not help the war against terror because it only enrages public opinion,” said Husain Haqqani, Pakistan’s ambassador to Washington, during a speech on Friday. “In this particular incident, nothing was gained by the action of the troops.”"

NEW PAKISTANI PRIME MINISTER FREES JUDGES ILLEGALLY DISMISSED BY MUSHARRAF

Finally we have the release of the Pakistani judges detained by Gen. Pervez Musharraf. The BBC reports that the new prime minister, Yusuf Raza Gillani, just ordered the judges to be freed:

"New Pakistani Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gillani has ordered the release of all judges detained under emergency rule, minutes after being elected by MPs.

"President Pervez Musharraf sacked dozens of judges in November and former chief justice Iftikhar Chaudhry was among those still held."

Musharraf had the judges, including Chief Justice Chaudhry, kicked out of office and arrested when they would not go along with his scheme to run for office at the same time that he was still an active general in the Pakistani Army.

Musharraf thought the Pakistani constitution did not apply to him. He apparently thought himself above the provisions of the constitution. Thus he got rid of the "messengers" or judges who would not rule in his favor.

Finally we get a return to constitutional law in Pakistan. Gillani, the new prime minister, made it a point in his party's quest for election that he would free the judges and return the constitutional rule of law. And this in spite of the cynical position of Bush and the U.S. in urging Musharraf not to back down on the judges.

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.

MUSHARRAF SAYS HE WILL LIFT MARTIAL LAW, BUT WHERE ARE THE LAWYERS AND JUDGES HE THREW IN JAIL?

Pakistan's Pervez Musharraf has agreed to rescind his emergency rule order on December 16th, reports Pamela Constable for The Washington Post today.

"Musharraf stepped down as army chief on Wednesday, meeting a key demand of opposition groups and Western allies. As he was sworn in to a new five-year term on Thursday, he pledged to seek reconciliation with opponents and move the country toward the "complete essence of democracy." But he also lashed out at the West for its "obsession" with a version of democracy and human rights that he said does not fit Pakistani society."

Oh, is it "western obsession" to object to the firing of the Chief Justice of the Pakistan Supreme Court when he disagrees with allowing you Musharraf to run for president at the same time as you are head of the army? And I wonder how Pakistani lawyers will understand a "version of democracy" that says there should not be free speech and free association? Or how about the lawyers and judges now in incarceration because they dared to disagree with Musharraf's stunted understanding of "democracy" - how will they understand Musharraf's version of democracy?

BUSH SHOWS CONTEMPT FOR RULE OF LAW IN PAKISTAN

So now Musharraf has the go ahead from his "Supreme Court" to become president even though he was elected during a time that he was also head of the Armed Forces, something that violates the Pakistani Constitution. No matter that he arrested or suspended those Justices who refused to go along with his power-grabbing scheme, or that he had police beat and arrest thousands of lawyers and judges who took to the streets to protest against the acts of a dictator.

If I was a Pakistani lawyer, I would be outraged at Musharraf, and even more incensed about Bush's statement a few days ago that Musharraf is a supporter of democracy and that his actions have "not crossed the line." So Bush believes that dismissing Justices of the Supreme Court who would not vote to allow Musharraf to fashion himself into ruler for life does not cross the line? I thought George Bush was the great white American beacon for all things democratic and free?

Pamela Constable writes in today's The Washington Post that Pakistanis resent Bush's statement of confidence in Musharraf, notwithstanding the decision of Musharraf's new hand-picked Pakistani Supreme Court to clear the way for Musharraf to remain in power.

Constable reports:

"Even if the planned elections are flawed, however, they could be sufficient to earn Musharraf a reprieve from mounting international criticism of his rule. Musharraf is a longtime U.S. ally in the war against terrorism, and the Bush administration, while urging him to lift emergency rule, has continued to support him and to suggest it will be satisfied if he fulfills his pledge to step down as army chief and hold elections.

"Earlier this week, President Bush said Musharraf had not yet "crossed the line" and that he believed the Pakistani leader was a believer in democracy and "a man of his word." On Thursday, protesters here carried posters saying, "Where is the line, Mr. Bush?" and showing cartoons of Musharraf and Gen. Mohammed Zia ul-Haq, a former Pakistani dictator, as "Bush's favorite democrats.""

Bush for all his blusterings about democracy shows himself to be a supporter of anti-democratic dictators. By allowing Musharraf to dismiss the Pakistani Justices, substitute his own stooges, and to beat and imprison lawyers, Bush shows his contempt for the rule of law and an independent judiciary.

BUSH ENDORSES MUSHARRAF, IGNORES JUDGES, LAWYERS AND RULE OF LAW IN PAKISTAN

Bush last night endorsed his pal Musharraf. This is simply outrageous. Musharraf, wanting to remain in power, illegally tosses out the judiciary and the justices on Pakistan's Supreme Court and imprisons protesting lawyers. Talk about the rule of law!

Michael Abramowitz and Robin Wright write in today's The Washington Post:

"President Bush yesterday offered his strongest support of embattled Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, saying the general "hasn't crossed the line" and "truly is somebody who believes in democracy."

"Bush spoke nearly three weeks after Musharraf declared emergency rule, sacked members of the Supreme Court and began a roundup of journalists, lawyers and human rights activists. Musharraf's government yesterday released about 3,000 political prisoners, although 2,000 remain in custody, according to the Interior Ministry."

Yet Bush, our great American saviour, sticks by his man. What happened to Bush the great bringer of democracy? The Bush who said that freedom (I assume this word means "rule of law") was God's gift to all mankind? Does it not apply to the Pakistani lawyers and judges who were beaten and locked up by Musharraf's goons?

The gospel according to Bush seems to change from minute to minute, depending on who is his "friend" (Musharraf, John Howard of Australia, Aznar of Spain, Merkel of Germany) and who is his enemy (Ahmadinejad of Iran, Kim Jong of North Korea, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, and Assad of Syria).

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.

GEN. MUSHARRAF - FREE PAKISTANI LAWYERS AND JUDGES

As a lawyer I am incensed by the jailing of protesting Pakistani lawyers and judges by Gen. Pervez Musharraf. I read Musharraf's autobiography, In the Line of Fire, and I was impressed by his seeming intelligence and good judgment. What a let down!

You cannot have a rule of law if you imprison a judge because the decision goes against you. How is Musharraf any better than those parties who lose a case and then threaten the judge or the opposing lawyer? The answer is, there is no difference. Musharraf is as bad as anyone who has ever taken revenge on the court because of an unfavorable decision.

All lawyers should rise up and protest Musharraf's illegal detention of members of the Pakistani legal profession.

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE MEANS THE U.S. ACCEPTS THE RULE OF LAW REGARDING WARFARE

John Fabian Witt has an article today in The Washington Post on how the Declaration of Independence took a novel approach to war - warfare should be subject to the rule of law. Witt, a professor of law and history at Columbia University writes:

"We all know that the Declaration of Independence announced the United States' freedom from the British Empire. We all remember that it declared certain truths to be self-evident. But what you probably haven't heard is that the declaration also advanced an idea about war. The idea was that war ought to be governed by law. . . .

"The declaration was the beginning of a remarkable but now little-remembered American tradition in the laws of war. In the 1780s, a treaty with Prussia committed the United States to follow European rules of warfare.

"During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln published a code for the Union Army that serves to this day as the foundation for the law of war around the globe.

"In the 20th century, Americans took a lead role in establishing the modern law of war. Franklin Roosevelt directed the creation of the Nuremberg tribunal for high-ranking German war criminals, and his aides wrote the U.N. charter's rules for the use of force. In this century we can see traces of Jefferson's charges in the law of naval warfare, in the distinction between combatants and civilians, in international law restricting the use of mercenaries and in the Third Geneva Convention's rules on prisoners of war."

Unfortunately today, with Bush and Cheney in control, the United States has become a nation that flouts the laws of war that it had proposed and embraced in the past, as if 9/11 and acts of Islamic fanatics had somehow changed the way that a nation that purports to be "the home of the free" can throw its weight around with its war planes, tanks and armies, and all the while the rule of law when it comes to war be damned.

That feeling of anything goes pervades the setting up and continuation of Guantanamo, the treatment afforded Taliban prisoners in Afghanistan, the establishment of secret detention centers, the use of extraordinary renditions, water-boarding, the passing into law of Lindsay Graham's bill that denies habeas corpus relief to Islamic prisoners and at the same time revokes the tradition of the Great Writ passed down in English law since the 12th Century, the justification of interrogation methods bordering on torture, rationalized by John Yoo and other harsh acolytes of Dick Cheney's nether world.

WHAT LAW DAY MEANS TO ME

Today, May 1, is Law Day. As some of you may know, I practiced law for two years after going to law school late in life and being admitted to my state bar (Utah). I read with interest Ruth Marcus today in the Washington Post on what Law Day should mean to George W. Bush. Here's what Law Day means to me:

• that everyone, citizen/non-citizen, plaintiff/defendant, "terrorist"/non-terrorist be afforded due process in our courts
• that no evidence obtained from torture or "enhanced interrogatory methods" be allowed or admitted as evidence
• that everyone have right to counsel, and this right not be restricted to a limited number of times as the DOJ is proposing for access to counsel by those in Guantanamo
• that there be equal protection under the law
• that our courts be open to all
• that there be no "secret" proceedings in our courts
• that the rule of law not be discarded in times of crisis