State of Emergency declared in Pakistan

[dustdevil28]

"Gen. Musharraf's second coup," said the headline in the Dawn daily. "It is martial law," said the Daily Times.

Across Pakistan, police arrested political activists and lawyers at the forefront of a campaign against military rule.

Among those detained were Javed Hashmi, the acting president of the party of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif; Asma Jehangir, chairman of the independent Human Rights Commission of Pakistan; and Hamid Gul, former chief of the country's main intelligence agency and a staunch critic of Musharraf's support of the U.S-led war on terror.

"It's a big blow to the country," said Gul, as a dozen officers took him away in a police van near the parliament in the capital, Islamabad. Hashmi said the army general would not "not survive the people's outrage."

Musharraf's leadership is threatened by an Islamic militant movement that has spread from border regions to the capital, the reemergence of political rival and former prime minister Benazir Bhutto and an increasingly defiant Supreme Court, which was expected to rule soon on the validity of his recent presidential election win.

Attorney General Malik Mohammed Qayyum denied claims by Bhutto and commentators in the domestic media, that Musharraf had imposed martial law — direct rule by the army — under the guise of a state of emergency.

"There is no martial law in the country," Qayyum said, noting that the prime minister and parliament were still in place. "Only a state of emergency has been declared."

In Islamabad, phone service that was cut Saturday evening appeared to have been restored by Sunday morning. But transmissions by TV news networks other than state-controlled Pakistan TV remained off the air in major cities.

Scores of paramilitary troops blocked access to the Supreme Court and parliament. Otherwise the streets of the capital appeared calm, with little sign of demonstrators.

"Nobody cares about us or about what we think," said Mohammad Amin, 31, wearing a black prayer cap as he took a break from his work with fellow laborers to sip sweet tea.

Western allies had urged Musharraf not to take authoritarian measures despite recent his country's recent turmoil.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called for a return to democracy in Pakistan, as the American embassy urged citizens in the country to remain at home and defer all nonessential travel. But Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said the emergency declaration "does not impact our military support of Pakistan" or its efforts in the war on terror.

Bhutto, who had traveled abroad again in the wake of an Oct. 18 suicide attack that narrowly missed her but killed 145 others, immediately flew back to the southern city of Karachi, and declared that the emergency was the "blackest day" in Pakistan's history.

"But I believe the problem is dictatorship, I don't believe the solution is dictatorship," she told Sky News television in a report available via satellite. "The extremists need a dictatorship, and dictatorship needs extremists."

In his televised address late Saturday, Musharraf, looking somber and composed, said Pakistan was at a "dangerous" juncture, its government threatened by Islamic extremists who are "taking the writ of the government in their own hands, and even worse they are imposing their obsolete ideas on moderates.

The military ruler, wearing a black button-down tunic rather than his army fatigues, also blamed the Supreme Court for punishing state officials and tying the hands of the government by postponing the validation of his recent election win. The court was to rule soon on opponents' claims that Musharraf's Oct. 6 victory was unconstitutional because he contested the vote while army chief.

Musharraf on Saturday replaced the chief justice, Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry, who had emerged as the main check on the president. His name was erased from the court's Web site.

"We have to create harmony among judiciary, legislative and executive ... This is how we would tackle the issue of terrorism in a better way," Musharraf said.

He said there would be no change in the government and its top offices, and parliament — set to dissolve by Nov. 15 — would complete its term. He did not say when parliamentary elections — due by January — would be held.

Musharraf's emergency order imposed a provisional constitution. Only five of the Supreme Court's 17 judges agreed to take an oath of office under the provisional document, newspapers reported, and in all only 33 of 87 senior judges across Pakistan did so.

Private Geo TV said in a report via satellite that authorities arrested Aitzaz Ahsan, a lawyer who represented Chaudhry when Musharraf unsuccessfully tried to fire him earlier this year. Another opposition party leader, Imran Khan, was put under house arrest Saturday.

The emergency comes as Musharraf's security forces struggle to contain pro-Taliban and Al Qaeda-linked militants who have gained control of large tracts of the volatile northwest, near Afghanistan.

Violence has reached major cities with deadly suicide attacks in Islamabad and Karachi underscoring the failure of Musharraf's administration to combat the threat despite huge financial support from the United States.

Talat Masood, a retired Pakistani general and respected analyst, said the emergency declaration was a pre-emptive move in case the court ruled against him, and said the move could "further aggravate terrorism and extremism in the country and slide the country into anarchism."

Rick Barton, a Pakistan expert at the Washington-based Center for International and Strategic Studies, said Musharraf's move would likely only postpone his political demise. "He's obviously not very popular, and it's not going to increase his popularity."

Musharraf issued two ordinances toughening media laws, including a ban on live TV broadcasts of "incidents of violence and conflict." Also, TV operators who "ridicule" the president, armed forces, or executive, legislative or judicial organs of the state can be punished with three years in jail

www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,307939,00.html

[peterd]

Musharraf will try to hold his power at all cost. Problem is that we cannot push him out. He was cooperative when came to war on terror. This is a classic example when we have to deal with small devil in order to get to satan (Al Qaida). This is somewhat ironic but necessary.

[dustdevil28]

Yes Pete, it is in our complete best intersts that Musharraf is successful as he makes his moves now. What will really be intersting is how former PM Bhutto is treated and how she reacts during this time in Pakistan.

My guess is that Musharraf will try to placate her and her supporters by assuring her a role in the reformed government either as the new PM, or in another fashion.

[FightingFalcon]

Unfortunately, this country has become so obsessed with Iran obtaining nuclear weapons that we've forgotten about Pakistan - a country that already has a rather extensive nuclear arsenal. The dangers of this country falling into chaos or, worse, an Islamic theocracy are very real. I don't know how the Pakistani military keeps getting the shit beat out of it by tribesmen in Waziristan (130 troops were just captured recently) but that country is falling apart.

I won't be holding my breath in anticipation of Musharraf declaring an end to the emergency. This seems like more of a permanent situation than a temporary one. But I guess that's what we should expect from a dictator.

[AmericanPride]

Pakistan is essential to American interests, regardless of its form of government. It is the only geographic corridor the US has to Central Asia, which is decisive not only in the War on Terrorism, but also America's long-term energy policy. Pakistan is also a designated major Non-NATO ally. We face similar problems in Egypt and Saudi Arabia -- strategic countries aligned with US interests that implement less than democratic means of curbing the combined forces of popular resentment and Islamism. Egypt has been in a "state of emergency" for several decades.

I doubt that Pakistan, however, will ever submit to the rule of radical religious elements. The northern tribes lack the capabilities to assert and sustain control over the county.

[dustdevil28]

americanpride2 said:

Pakistan is essential to American interests, regardless of its form of government. It is the only geographic corridor the US has to Central Asia, which is decisive not only in the War on Terrorism, but also America's long-term energy policy. Pakistan is also a designated major Non-NATO ally. We face similar problems in Egypt and Saudi Arabia -- strategic countries aligned with US interests that implement less than democratic means of curbing the combined forces of popular resentment and Islamism. Egypt has been in a "state of emergency" for several decades.

I doubt that Pakistan, however, will ever submit to the rule of radical religious elements. The northern tribes lack the capabilities to assert and sustain control over the county.

As both you and James point out, things are dicey at best in Pakistan, but we have little choice other than to back Musharref and hope that he is right in this instant and is able to regain control over the country quickly. His best option right now is to reach an agreement with former PM Bhutto and to allow the January elections to proceed on schedule. If he allows this to happen and resigns his position in the Army as well than he may be able to calm the populace there just enough to keep things from getting completly out of control.

[FightingFalcon]

I just don't understand how arresting judges, lawyers, journalists and human rights activists is in any way, shape or form related to the war against Islamic extremism.

The events that unfolded over the past two days showed that this is clearly an attempt by Musharraf to maintain control over and increasingly dissatisfied and angry populace. Islamic terrorism might be the excuse but the actions taken by Musharraf have tyranny written all over it. This most recent coup is really a text-book example of how military dictatorships can take over.

[AmericanPride]

James,

"Arresting judges, journalists and human rights activists" is related to "the war against Islamic extremism" through Musharraf's role as President of Pakistan. Pakistan is the foundation of US policy in Central and South Asia. As you know as a LT, policy is simply the strategy to attain the political interest -- in this case, access to energy markets, sustaining the War on Terrorism, and promoting reliable Islamic allies. Imposing democratic government on an "increasingly dissatisfied and angry populace" is not a viable strategy, as evident by the elections of Hamas in the Palestinian Territories. America's most reliable Islamic allies are nondemocratic states.

This is a classic example of the conflictive nature of power and principle policies -- and power generally prevails. Ideology should be left at home so it does not interfere with the implementation of practical policy.

[FightingFalcon]

"Arresting judges, journalists and human rights activists" is related to "the war against Islamic extremism" through Musharraf's role as President of Pakistan. Pakistan is the foundation of US policy in Central and South Asia. As you know as a LT, policy is simply the strategy to attain the political interest -- in this case, access to energy markets, sustaining the War on Terrorism, and promoting reliable Islamic allies. Imposing democratic government on an "increasingly dissatisfied and angry populace" is not a viable strategy, as evident by the elections of Hamas in the Palestinian Territories. America's most reliable Islamic allies are nondemocratic states.

This is a classic example of the conflictive nature of power and principle policies -- and power generally prevails. Ideology should be left at home so it does not interfere with the implementation of practical policy.

Chris, I know nothing gets you more excited than soldiers crushing civil liberties but the fact of the matter is that this has nothing to do with protecting the interests of Pakistan. The population of Pakistan is, for the most part, moderate and rejects radical Islam. Furthermore, arresting the very people who are fighting to keep Pakistan from turning into a theocracy (judges, lawyers, human rights activists, social liberals, etc.) will do nothing to aid the war against Islamic terrorism. It will only embolden the more extreme members of society to pursue their goals - meanwhile, America watches and does nothing as the Bush Doctrine is openly and brazenly attacked.

This is nothing more than an attempt by Musharraf to maintain control over his increasingly unpopular government. He never recovered from his public embarrassment vis-a-vis the Supreme Court Chief Justice and knows that he was ultimately doomed in the upcoming elections. This has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism.

[dustdevil28]

James,

You do realize that Musharref was reelected last month right? The biggest danger to Musharref was whether the Pakistani supreme court was going to rule his election legitimate, or rule against it since he ran while still maintaining his position in the Army. With Musharref's declaration, the smart bet is that the court was going to rule against him and that Musharref did this in order to maintain power.

What else is America supposed to do hear? You say we've done nothing, well it's been all of 3 days and the state department is reviewing it's aid package to Pakistan. I would say hold off on cutting any aid for at least a month to gage whether Musharref will allow elections to be held in December or January as they are scheduled and whether he gives up his position in the Army. If he is able to calm the populace and take these measures to quickly restore democracy I see no need to cut our aid to Pakistan. If on the other hand he enforces a bloody crackdown on human rights activists and lawyers, than I'd say we should restrict our aid to strictly military aid and nothing more.

[AmericanPride]

The vast majority of US aid (I think exceeding ten billion dollars since 9/11) is military in nature. Pakistan is key to America's security. James seems to think it's a prudent policy to forgo our security, the War on Terrorism, and, in the end, the protection of America's liberty, by meddling in the internal affairs of a reliable, long-standing ally and forcing them to adhere to vague fanciful ideas of anarchic libertarianism that are completely foreign to their country and history.

[FightingFalcon]

You do realize that Musharref was reelected last month right? The biggest danger to Musharref was whether the Pakistani supreme court was going to rule his election legitimate, or rule against it since he ran while still maintaining his position in the Army. With Musharref's declaration, the smart bet is that the court was going to rule against him and that Musharref did this in order to maintain power.

So then you are in agreement that this has absolutely nothing to do with Islamic terrorism? Rather, it has to do with the election recently held in Pakistan.

If on the other hand he enforces a bloody crackdown on human rights activists and lawyers, than I'd say we should restrict our aid to strictly military aid and nothing more.

As Chris pointed out, our $11 billion in aid is largely military in nature anyway. Not that it matters because another Pakistani group of soldiers laid down their arms to rebels in Waziristan because they refuse to fight against their Muslim brothers. You might not believe that Islamic terrorists can take over in Pakistan but I disagree - I think a significant enough percentage of the military sympathizes with them and if someone like General Musharraf can't maintain loyalty of the military, then no one can.

[FightingFalcon]

The vast majority of US aid (I think exceeding ten billion dollars since 9/11) is military in nature. Pakistan is key to America's security. James seems to think it's a prudent policy to forgo our security, the War on Terrorism, and, in the end, the protection of America's liberty, by meddling in the internal affairs of a reliable, long-standing ally and forcing them to adhere to vague fanciful ideas of anarchic libertarianism that are completely foreign to their country and history.

The rule of law and the sovereignty of the judicial branch are examples of "anarchic libertarianism"?

Have you completely lost your mind?

Furthermore, how exactly are we meddling in the affairs of other countries by withholding our money? Who says that the money we grant them comes with absolutely no strings attached?

[dustdevil28]

fightingfalcon said:

So then you are in agreement that this has absolutely nothing to do with Islamic terrorism? Rather, it has to do with the election recently held in Pakistan.

Absolutely. This state of emergency is intended to keep Musharref in power at all costs.

As Chris pointed out, our $11 billion in aid is largely military in nature anyway. Not that it matters because another Pakistani group of soldiers laid down their arms to rebels in Waziristan because they refuse to fight against their Muslim brothers. You might not believe that Islamic terrorists can take over in Pakistan but I disagree - I think a significant enough percentage of the military sympathizes with them and if someone like General Musharraf can't maintain loyalty of the military, then no one can.

Here is where we disagree. We've seen enough moderates in Karachi and the south to the central to believe that the islamic extremists are unable to take over the country. Cutting off funds is really not a option right now. Musharref does still maintain the loyalty of key generals, so there isn't much prospect of a coup and with their loyalty it should be expected that they can either crack down on derelict soldiers, or entice them to fight the islamists by broadcasting images of the innocent victims of their many suicide blasts and highlighting how islam cannot support this.

His best options are to arrange to have the parlimentary elections held on schedule and allow former PM Bhutto to return to her former job. If he does this and steps away from the army he should be able to calm the populace enough to make it past this.

[dustdevil28]

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - President Gen. Pervez Musharraf announced Thursday that Pakistan would hold parliamentary elections by mid-February, a move praised by the United States, which has been pressuring its ally to restore democracy.

Musharraf's government had said in the wake of Saturday's declaration of emergency rule that the vote could be delayed by as long as a year.

But with anger over military rule spreading, the United States and domestic opponents have been stepping up pressure on Musharraf to end the emergency rule. President Bush personally urged Musharraf Wednesday to hold the elections as planned and leave his military post.

State-run television flashed Musharraf's announcement that the elections would proceed just a month later than originally planned. The news was seen as an indication that the emergency would be short-lived because authorities would likely have to ease up on security restrictions to allow campaigning.

"We think it is a good thing that President Musharraf has clarified the election date for the Pakistani people," White House press secretary Dana Perino said.

Musharraf's decision, announced after a meeting of his National Security Council, was denounced by opposition leader Benazir Bhutto, who called it insufficient and said he should step down as army chief within a week.

A Bhutto spokesman said authorities arrested hundreds of her supporters overnight to head off a major rally she is planning near Islamabad on Friday.

Attorney General Malik Mohammed Qayyum still forecast that the state of emergency would be lifted in "one or two" months.

"It depends on how the law and order situation improves," Qayyum told The Associated Press.

Musharraf, who seized power in a 1999 coup, maintains that restoring democracy is his ultimate aim and the emergency was needed to prevent political instability, protect economic growth, and maintain the campaign against extremism and terrorism.

Pakistan, a country of 160 million, has been wracked by Taliban and al-Qaida-linked violence, including suicide bombings and clashes in its troubled northwest, where the insurgents have in recent weeks scored a series of victories against government forces.

Critics say Musharraf imposed the emergency measures to maintain his own grip on power by subverting the Supreme Court, which is set to rule on the legality of Musharraf's recent re-election as president.

Days of protests, most of them by lawyers angered by the attacks on the judiciary, have been quickly and sometimes brutally put down, and thousands of lawyers and opposition activists have been detained.

Four of those arrested were charged with treason Thursday for making anti-Musharraf speeches in the southern port city of Karachi. The men — three politicians from small leftist political parties and a labor union activist — were the first government opponents charged with treason since the emergency was imposed. If convicted, the charge carries a maximum penalty of death.

Police in Karachi also were trying to arrest eight lawyers on treason charges for distributing anti-Musharraf leaflets.

In Islamabad, police chased about 20 high-school students into the city's bar association headquarters after they showed up in solidarity with dozens of protesting lawyers, who were observing the fourth day of a nationwide strike.

In Lahore, in eastern Pakistan, more than 100 professors boycotted classes and marched on the campus of the state-run University of the Punjab.

Perhaps more troubling for Musharraf, however, has been Bhutto's move to join the protests, adding a new dimension to the worsening political instability.

Authorities appeared determined to prevent a large protest called by her for Friday in Rawalpindi, a garrison city on the outskirts of Islamabad. About 20 policemen were posted Thursday to keep people out of the park where rally was to be held, Liaquat Bagh — named for Pakistan's first prime minister, who was assassinated there in 1951.

The city's police chief warned that suicide bombers were preparing to attack the rally.

"We have intelligence reports that suicide bombers have entered Rawalpindi," said police chief Saud Aziz. He added that the warning was based on specific information and "the situation is very serious."

Bhutto's own jubilant homecoming procession last month following eight years in exile was shattered by suicide bombers, leaving more than 145 people dead. Authorities suspect Islamic militants in that attack.

With Bhutto showing no signs of calling off the rally — she has repeatedly said she is willing to risk more bombings — police arrested at least 800 of her supporters across the eastern province of Punjab overnight, said Jamil Soomro, a spokesman for the opposition leader.

But the government denied the arrests, saying no such crackdown had been ordered.

"According to my information, only four members from her party were detained last night when they defied a ban on rallies," said Interior Ministry spokesman Javed Iqbal Cheema.

For days, the White House has faced questions about why Bush was not taking a tougher line against Musharraf who since Saturday's emergency declaration has ousted independent-minded judges, put a stranglehold on the media and arrested thousands of mainly moderate, secular Pakistanis.

Bush, personally stepping into the political crisis for the first time, said he told President Gen. Pervez Musharraf in a 20-minute conversation: "You can't be the president and the head of the military at the same time.

"My message was very plain, very easy to understand, and that is, the United States wants you to have the elections as scheduled and take your uniform off," Bush said during a news conference with French President Nicolas Sarkozy in Virginia.

A Pakistani Foreign Ministry statement said Musharraf, a key U.S. ally in its war on terrorism, had told Bush he "was committed to full democracy and civilian rule in the country as he had promised to the people of Pakistan."

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071108/ap_on_re_as/pakistan