Emergency rule in Pakistan, clashes with police, judges removed from office..

[motivez]

Some excerpts of the text Musharraf's emergency order:

SLAMABAD, Nov 3 (Reuters) - Pakistan military President Pervez Musharraf imposed emergency rule on Saturday, citing mounting militant attacks and interference by members of the judiciary. Key excerpts of the text follow:

... there is visible ascendancy in the activities of extremists and incidents of terrorist attacks, including suicide bombings, IED explosions, rocket firing and bomb explosions and the banding together of some militant groups, have taken such activities to an unprecedented level of violent intensity posing a grave threat to the life and property of the citizens of Pakistan.

... some members of the judiciary are working at cross purposes with the executive and legislature in the fight against terrorism and extremism, thereby weakening the government and the nation's resolve and diluting the efficacy of its actions to control this menace.

... there has been increasing interference by some members of the judiciary in government policy, adversely affecting economic growth in particular.

... constant interference in executive functions, including but not limited to the control of terrorist activity, economic policy, price controls, downsizing of corporations and urban planning, has weakened the writ of the government.

... some hard core militants, extremists, terrorists and suicide bombers, who were arrested and being investigated were ordered to be released. The persons so released have subsequently been involved in heinous terrorist activities, resulting in loss of human life and property. Militants across the country have, thus, been encouraged while law enforcement agencies subdued.

... some judges by overstepping the limits of judicial authority have taken over the executive and legislative functions;

... the government is committed to the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law and holds the superior judiciary in high esteem. It is nonetheless of paramount importance that the honourable judges confine the scope of their activity to the judicial function and not assume charge of administration.

... an important constitutional institution, the Supreme Judicial Council, has been made entirely irrelevant and non est by a recent order and judges have, thus, made themselves immune from inquiry into their conduct and put themselves beyond accountability.

... the humiliating treatement meted to government officials by some members of the judiciary on a routine basis during court proceedings has demoralized the civil bureaucracy, and senior government functionaries, to avoid being harassed, prefer inaction.

TEXT-Key excerpts of Pakistan Musharraf's emergency order | Reuters

An article about the situation:

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Sunday, Nov. 4 — The Pakistani leader, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, declared a state of emergency on Saturday night, suspending the country’s Constitution, firing the chief justice of the Supreme Court and filling the streets of this capital city with police officers.

The move appeared to be an effort by General Musharraf to reassert his fading power in the face of growing opposition from the country’s Supreme Court, political parties and hard-line Islamists. Pakistan’s Supreme Court had been expected to rule within days on the legality of General Musharraf’s re-election last month as the country’s president.

The emergency act, which analysts and opposition leaders said was more a declaration of martial law, also boldly defied the Bush administration, which had repeatedly urged General Musharraf to avoid such a path and instead move toward democracy. Washington has generously backed the general, sending him more than $10 billion in aid since 2001, mostly for the military. Now the administration finds itself in the bind of having to publicly castigate the man it has described as one of its closest allies in fighting terrorism.

In blunt and brief comments on Saturday, American officials condemned General Musharraf’s move. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice demanded a “quick return to constitutional law.” And in Washington, the White House spokesman, Gordon D. Johndroe, said, “This action is very disappointing,” and he called on General Musharraf to honor his earlier pledge to resign as army commander and hold nationwide elections before Jan. 15.

In Pakistan, former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, the main opposition leader, returned early from a visit in Dubai, setting up the possibility that she and her party, as well as other opposition groups like the powerful lawyers’ body here, could organize demonstrations against the president. After landing in Karachi, she mocked General Musharraf and accused him of using the specter of terrorism to prolong his hold on power. “This is not emergency,” she said. “This is martial law.”

After a day of rumors in the Pakistani news media than an emergency declaration would come, the first proof came just after 5 p.m., when independent and international television news stations abruptly went blank in Islamabad and other major cities. Soon after, dozens of police officers surrounded the Supreme Court building, with some justices still inside.

Under the emergency declaration, the justices were ordered to take an oath to abide by a “provisional constitutional order” that replaces the country’s existing Constitution. Those who failed to do so would be dismissed.

Seven of the court’s 11 justices gathered inside the court rejected the order, according to an aide to Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. Issuing their own legal order, the justices called General Musharraf’s declaration unlawful and urged military officials to not abide by it.

By 9 p.m., Chief Justice Chaudhry and the other justices had gone to their homes, which were surrounded by police officers. The police blocked journalists from entering the area, disconnected telephone lines and jammed cellphones in the area.

Several hours later, the state-run news media reported that three justices generally seen as supporting General Musharraf had taken an oath to uphold the emergency measure. And it was announced that Mr. Chaudhry had been replaced by a pro-government member of the Supreme Court bench, Abdul Hamid Doger, as chief justice.

Just after midnight, General Musharraf appeared on state-run television. In a 45-minute speech, he said he had declared the emergency to limit terrorist attacks and “preserve the democratic transition that I initiated eight years back.”

He gave no firm date for nationwide elections that had been scheduled for January and said his current Parliament, which he dominates, would remain in place. He did not say how long the state of emergency would be maintained.

The general, dressed in civilian clothes, quoted Lincoln, citing the former president’s suspension of some rights during the American Civil War as justification for his own state of emergency.

He accused the country’s Supreme Court of releasing 61 men who he said were under investigation for terrorist activities. “Judicial activism,” he said, had demoralized the security forces, hurt the fight against terrorism and slowed the spread of democracy. “Obstacles are being created in the way of democratic process,” he said, “I think for vested, personal interests, against the interest of the country.”

Wamiq Zuberi, director of Aaj TV, one of the independent stations blacked out on Saturday, said the government had also issued two new orders sharply limiting news coverage.

The orders prohibit coverage that “brings into ridicule or disrepute” General Musharraf and other officials, he said. They also ban the publication of statements from terrorist groups, as well as photographs of suicide bombers or their victims. Violators face up to three years in prison.

Opposition leaders condemned the emergency declaration. Aitzaz Ahsan, a prominent lawyer who led protests against General Musharraf this spring, was detained by the police after saying that opposition groups would announce a schedule of nationwide strikes and protests on Monday.

Before being detained, he accused General Musharraf of “criminal flouting of the Constitution,” adding, “The people and the lawyers cannot be suspended.”

Reuters reported that other opposition leaders were detained. Among them were Imran Khan, an opposition politician and former cricket star who was placed under house arrest, and Javed Hashmi, a leader of the former prime minister Nawaz Sharif’s party.

Pakistani analysts said the emergency order was, in effect, a declaration of martial law because there were no constitutional provisions allowing such an order.

“This is the imposition of real military rule, because there is no Constitution,” said Hasan-Askari Rizvi, an expert on Pakistani military affairs.

General Musharraf resorted to military power to gain the presidency in October 1999 when he staged a bloodless coup, and Mr. Rizvi said this was a return to those measures. “This is the first time Musharraf has brought in military rule to sustain himself in power,” he said. “He felt threatened by the Supreme Court.”

Mr. Chaudhry, the former chief justice, has been the focal point of the opposition to General Musharraf since the president fired him in March. With support from lawyers, judges and a wide public following, Mr. Chaudhry led a street-style political campaign against his summary firing that helped fuel popular sentiment against General Musharraf.

The Supreme Court reinstated Mr. Chaudhry this summer, and in September it ruled in favor of General Musharraf, saying he could run for re-election while still in uniform.

Late Saturday evening, Islamabad and other major cities were quiet. But analysts said that General Musharraf’s fate would play out on Pakistan’s streets over the next three to four days.

If Ms. Bhutto’s party and other opposition groups are able to mount nationwide street protests, the general could be forced from power. In the past, Pakistan’s army has ousted military leaders when they felt their actions were damaging to the army as an institution.

“If there are street agitations and a lot of people are arrested, he’ll have problems,” Mr. Rizvi said.

At the same time, Ms. Bhutto’s political career is at stake as well, Mr. Rizvi said. If she fails to lead protests, she will lose legitimacy as an opposition leader, he said. And if she tries and produces a paltry turnout, she could find herself in jail or exile.

Ms. Bhutto returned to Pakistan on Oct. 18 for the first time in eight years under a plan that the Bush administration had hoped would bring a democratic sheen to the country even as it continued under the rule of General Musharraf. That plan now lies in tatters.

Pakistani Sets Emergency Rule, Defying the U.S.

Here's two other articles about the situation if you haven't heard or read anything about it:

BBC NEWS | South Asia | Bhutto issues Pakistan ultimatum
My Way News - Pakistani Police Beat Protesters

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the entire situation.. but essentially since the emergency order there have been many protests, and clashes with police.. even suicide bombings killing several hundred people.

I know we've had a thread lately about whether or not it was acceptable to support this man in lieu of better options, but suspending the country's constitution, refusing to hold elections, etc..

But really, what kind of message does it send to the portion of the country that wants democracy and freedom if we continue to support a guy who's stifiling it in his own country, while we went to war with Iraq and used oppression and lack of freedom for the Iraqi people as one of the reasons (after WMD weren't found, of course) for doing so?

And not just the people in Pakistan, but the rest of the middle east? That we'll support people who trample your rights and wont let you vote and think it's okay to deny you basic freedoms... as long as they're on board with our foreign policy agenda?

That if they defy us, we'll use those very same things we overlook as justification to go to war? To occupy your country and so forth?

It's massively hypocritical, and while I certainly don't want to see Pakistan turn into a state run by Islamic theocrats who will have control over a nuclear arsenal, I think this situation calls into question whether or not we really care about freedom and democracy as a country, or only care about it when it's politically expedient to our broader agendas on a global scale.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by motivez

Some excerpts of the text Musharraf's emergency order:



TEXT-Key excerpts of Pakistan Musharraf's emergency order | Reuters

An article about the situation:



Pakistani Sets Emergency Rule, Defying the U.S.

Here's two other articles about the situation if you haven't heard or read anything about it:

BBC NEWS | South Asia | Bhutto issues Pakistan ultimatum
My Way News - Pakistani Police Beat Protesters

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the entire situation.. but essentially since the emergency order there have been many protests, and clashes with police.. even suicide bombings killing several hundred people.

I know we've had a thread lately about whether or not it was acceptable to support this man in lieu of better options, but suspending the country's constitution, refusing to hold elections, etc..

But really, what kind of message does it send to the portion of the country that wants democracy and freedom if we continue to support a guy who's stifiling it in his own country, while we went to war with Iraq and used oppression and lack of freedom for the Iraqi people as one of the reasons (after WMD weren't found, of course) for doing so?

And not just the people in Pakistan, but the rest of the middle east? That we'll support people who trample your rights and wont let you vote and think it's okay to deny you basic freedoms... as long as they're on board with our foreign policy agenda?

That if they defy us, we'll use those very same things we overlook as justification to go to war? To occupy your country and so forth?

It's massively hypocritical, and while I certainly don't want to see Pakistan turn into a state run by Islamic theocrats who will have control over a nuclear arsenal, I think this situation calls into question whether or not we really care about freedom and democracy as a country, or only care about it when it's politically expedient to our broader agendas on a global scale.

And it's hypocritical that you demand we have better relations with Iran, North Korea and Cuba and they do the same things as Pakistan is doing.

Politics makes strange bedfellows. And I'm pretty sure our government condemned this a few days ago.

[motivez]

Hypocrisy not found, we don't have to agree with decisions made by countries to engage in diplomacy and talks with them

The world works better when you learn to be mature enough to talk through differences instead of threatening everyone you have a problem with.

We certainly don't have to FUND countries like Pakistan, Iran, Cuba, etc.. if we disagree with how they run their country.. we've given over 10 billion dollars worth of aid to Pakistan, mostly for the military... ironically it's the military rule of Pakistan that's now being used to oppress the people

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by motivez

We certainly don't have to FUND countries like Pakistan, Iran, Cuba, etc.. if we disagree with how they run their country.. we've given over 10 billion dollars worth of aid to Pakistan, mostly for the military... ironically it's the military rule of Pakistan that's now being used to oppress the people

Yeah. We gave a lot of aid to Stalin as well. We need to tune up our DeLorean, it doesn't seem to be working right.

[Publius]

Bhutto under house arrest in Pakistan - Yahoo! News

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - Pakistani police placed opposition leader Benazir Bhutto under house arrest Friday, uncoiling barbed wire in front of her Islamabad villa, and reportedly rounding up thousands of her supporters to block a mass protest against emergency rule.

The United States called for the restrictions on Bhutto to be lifted, saying it was "crucial for Pakistan's future that moderate political forces work together to bring Pakistan back on the path to democracy." A government spokesman promised she would be free by Saturday.

Bhutto twice tried to leave in her car on Friday, telling police: "Do not raise hands on women. You are Muslims. This is un-Islamic." They responded by blocking her way with an armored vehicle.

The former prime minister had planned to defy a ban on political gatherings and address a rally in nearby Rawalpindi, where police used tear gas and batons to chase off hundreds of supporters who staged wildcat protests and hurled stones. More than 100 were arrested.

The city mayor said they had reports suicide bombers might attack the rally. Deputy Information Minister Tariq Azim said there was a restraining order against Bhutto, telling her to stay at her Islamabad home and not proceed to Rawalpindi because of the security threat.

"I expect that (the order) is all over by now," Azim told The Associated Press. "She will be free to move tomorrow."

President Gen. Pervez Musharraf came under increased pressure from his chief international supporter, the United States.

"We remain concerned about the continued state of emergency and curtailment of basic freedoms, and urge Pakistani authorities to quickly return to constitutional order and democratic norms," Gordon Johndroe, a spokesman for the National Security Council said in a statement. "Former Prime Minister Bhutto and other political party members must be permitted freedom of movement and all protesters released."

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, speaking to reporters earlier Friday on his plane en route home from a weeklong visit to Asia, said he was concerned Musharraf's emergency declaration and the protests and arrests that it spawned could affect operations in Afghanistan.

"The concern I have is that the longer the internal problems continue, the more distracted the Pakistani army and security services will be in terms of the internal situation rather than focusing on the terrorist threat in the frontier area," said Gates.

Further afield, a suicide bombing at a government minister's home in the northwestern city of Peshawar killed four people. Minister for Political Affairs Amir Muqam was unhurt.

The attack underscored the threat posed by religious extremists in this Islamic nation that Musharraf and Bhutto are sparring over. It was cited by Musharraf as the primary reason for imposing the state of emergency last Saturday.

But most of the thousands of people rounded up countrywide since have been moderates — lawyers and activists from secular opposition parties, such as Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party. The mass detentions have fueled criticism that Musharraf — who seized power in a 1999 coup — declared the emergency to maintain his own grip on power.

Friday's crackdown showed that Musharraf was not letting up on his political rivals, despite saying a day earlier that parliamentary elections would go ahead by mid-February, just a month later than originally planned. His announcement came after intense U.S. pressure.

But the crackdown further dimmed prospects that Bhutto and Musharraf would soon form an alliance, which Washington has pushed for, against Islamic extremists.

Speaking to a few dozen supporters inside the barricades after her second foiled attempt to escape, Bhutto said that "we suspended our negotiations" with Musharraf after the emergency was imposed. She also repeated demands that Musharraf step down as army chief by next week, when his presidential term expires.

Musharraf's popularity has plummeted this year amid growing resentment of military rule and his government's failure to curb Taliban and al-Qaida militants.

Outside Bhutto's house scores of police, some in riot gear, monitored her supporters, who repeatedly tried to remove barbed wire and steel and concrete barriers.

At least 30 Bhutto supporters were arrested, including a woman who showed up with flowers. An old bearded man who showed up with a sharp machete and a goat he planned to sacrifice to bring Bhutto good luck was simply shooed away by police.

There was confusion over whether authorities had served Bhutto with a formal detention order. Officials said they had, but Bhutto's aides said they had not received it — and would not accept it. An intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to media, said Bhutto was ordered detained for 30 days, but Azim denied that.

After being turned back twice, Bhutto delivered an address heard by reporters on the other side of the barricades.

"I want to tell you to have courage because this battle is against dictatorship and it will be won by the people," she told her followers.

Her supporters said they would only be further emboldened by Friday's clampdown.

"We are going to besiege" Islamabad, said Abida Hussain, a former ambassador to the United States. "Our party activists have been mobilized to move out and take to the streets."

Authorities appeared determined to stop them. Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party, or PPP, claimed Friday that 5,000 of its supporters had been arrested in the last three days across the eastern province of Punjab. But security officials said only 1,100 had been detained.

In Rawalpindi, the normally bustling city near Islamabad where Bhutto had planned to hold her rally Friday, hundreds of police — some on horseback, motorcycles or in armored vehicles — kept a tight grip on the largely empty streets and moved fast against any hint of protest.

Rawalpindi's mayor had earlier in the day warned of a "credible report" that six or seven bombers were preparing a repeat of last month's attack of Bhutto's jubilant homecoming procession in the southern city of Karachi after eight years of exile. She escaped unharmed, but more than 145 people died in the attack, blamed on Islamic militants.

Rawalpindi has also been hit by a series of suicide attacks, targeting the military.

There were also scattered protests in Peshawar and Karachi, where opposition supporters blocked some roads with burning tires.

Curtailment of basic freedoms in the name of "security," protesters being arrested en masse... How can anyone really think Musharraf is going to let elections truly take place? The man is a dictator, pure and simple.

How will this shake out? How blatant will Musharraf's power grab have to be before there is all-out rebellion?

[Scrum]

Great. He's using our money to oppress his people.


We should cut them off right now. No support, full economic sanctions and we should urge our allies to do the same.

[motivez]

Bush apparently has said he called him and urged him to take off his uniform and told him he needed to hold elections, and essentially has been snubbed at this point..

I agree that we shouldn't be funding him and should impose economic sanctions and get the UN involved, this isn't something we should let the arab world think we're supportive of in any way.

[JaJae]

You guys hear about what's going on in Venezuela as well?
Venezuela on Yahoo! News Photos

All these oil countries seem so insane. We really need to get off our dependence on them so we're not involved anymore.

[RMNIXON]

By Kamran Haider 1 hour, 51 minutes ago


ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto was freed from house arrest late on Friday, hours after she was stopped from leaving her Islamabad home to lead a rally against the president's imposition of emergency rule.

"The detention order has been withdrawn," said Aamir Ali Ahmed, acting deputy commissioner of Islamabad.

A security official said police barricades around Bhutto's home were being taken down. A spokeswoman for Bhutto's party, Sherry Rehman, said she had no information about the lifting of the order.

Earlier in the day police prevented Bhutto from leaving her home and sealed off the capital and the nearby city of Rawalpindi to stop a rally against President Pervez Musharraf.

Bhutto, the politician most capable of galvanizing mass protests against army chief Musharraf, had appealed to police to let her through their cordon.

"The government has been paralyzed," Bhutto shouted to supporters across a barbed-wire barricade.

"If he restores the constitution, takes off his uniform, gives up the office of the chief of army staff and announces an election by January 15, then it's OK," she said, vowing defiance if Musharraf did not comply.

__________________________________________________ _______________

This is some good news. I think he needs to work with Bhutto in order to put on a popular face in opposition to terrorist extremists. I suspect his priority is to save his own ass?

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by JaJae

You guys hear about what's going on in Venezuela as well?
Venezuela on Yahoo! News Photos

All these oil countries seem so insane. We really need to get off our dependence on them so we're not involved anymore.

That sucks!

I have yet to see any news on this story.

[Rouger2]

Some presidents here would have loved being able to dismiss the supreme court. It kind of reminded me of some of the battles presidents here have had with the supreme court, of course it never went as far as it has gone in Pakistan. You know we have been very lucky here or had very good leadership in the past because we have never had the military even remotely want to take control of our country and in so many places now and in the past the military has been the problem with wanting to rule, and that seems to be the problem here. The military is losing control and they are fighting it to the end it seems. Pakistan has seemed to be moving further towards democracy and the rule of the people through their reps. The Military sure doesn't want that to happen. Bush is right to tell him to take off his uniform, but that is not going to change things. Is there any intelligent leadership over there maybe a Ghandi some where. Somebody to turn the other cheek and love thy brother as they self, oh but that is christian talk better not say that.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by JaJae

You guys hear about what's going on in Venezuela as well?
Venezuela on Yahoo! News Photos

All these oil countries seem so insane. We really need to get off our dependence on them so we're not involved anymore.

The sooner the better.