ISLAMABAD, June 21: The counsel for Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry on Thursday said that events of March 9, appointment of the Acting Chief Justice and convening of the Supreme Judicial Council in an ‘unholy haste’ amounted to a coup in the Supreme Court and an extension to the executive’s ‘conspiracy’ to topple the CJ.

“Why could the chief justice not be invited to the SJC (which endorsed the president’s decision to restrain the CJ from functioning) when he (CJ) was only five minutes’ drive away from the Supreme Court building,” asked Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan. He was arguing before a 13-member larger bench hearing a petition filed by the chief justice.

“The March 9 meeting of the SJC was totally illegal and could not have been convened by the ACJ even if his appointment was valid,” he said.

At this, Advocate Malik Mohammad Qayyum, representing the federal government, reached the rostrum to ask: “If this was a coup then coup by whom: either by the executive or by someone else.”

Barrister Ahsan deplored that despite 42 references pending before the SJC against different judges of superior courts, the council passionately pursued the reference against the CJ. “Action against the CJ is discriminatory because the reference against him bears serial No 43 of 2007, which means 42 references are already pending against different judges,” the counsel argued.

“Then where are the other references,” Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday, the presiding judge, asked.

“This is the question I want to put before your lordship as to why the chief justice is being prosecuted in an unholy haste and in a mala fide manner,” Barrister Ahsan asked. He said so far only one reference, against Justice Shaikh Shaukat, had been taken up by the council while the rest were not touched.

Justice Mohammad Nawaz Abbasi observed that those references might have been simple complaints against judges and not presidential references. This prompted Barrister Ahsan to ask: “What does it mean? Will those complaints be never taken up or heard for adjudication?”

No other judge had been dealt with such haste by the council like the CJ and the manner in which the SJC proceeded without even bothering to find the whereabouts and wellbeing of their own colleague who was under detention cast deep shadow of impropriety on its proceedings, Barrister Ahsan said. “And the restraining order of the council against the CJ proved that the first order by the president was not a valid and legal one,” he explained.

Barrister Ahsan recalled that in a meeting with a British diplomat he had asked what would have happened if a constable manhandled the Lord Chief Justice of Britain (an obvious reference to the manhandling of the CJ by the Islamabad police on March 13). Prime Minister Tony Blair would have resigned within half an hour was the reply of the diplomat, Barrister

Ahsan said. “These are the traditions.”

He described the affidavits submitted by the chief of staff to the president as false, based on hearsay and aimed at maligning the CJ.

He recalled that the president in an interview had admitted that the CJ was under detention and his telephones were cut off by some officers.

The president also admitted that materials for the reference had been collected from intelligence agencies which had nothing to do with snooping on judges.

Barrister Ahsan described the PO 27 (Judges Compulsory Leave Order) under which the CJ was sent on forced leave on March 15 as unconstitutional since it was introduced by a dictator (Gen Yahya Khan), and said that judges were always humiliated during the military rule.

“Had I been the AG, I would have loathed over the distasteful order endeavouring to encroach upon the independence of the judiciary,” he said.

At this, Justice M. Javed Buttar observed: “We have great traditions and many who called themselves great jurists have the honour of authoring the Constitution given by military dictators.”

“But without a chapter on fundamental rights,” Aitzaz Ahsan said and asked what was the necessity of sending the CJ on forced leave if the earlier orders of restraining the CJ were valid. “This shows that the earlier retraining orders were illegal and ineffective.”

In this way, the president also admitted through his conduct that the order of the appointment of the ACJ was also invalid and illegal and, therefore, the convening of the SJC was also illegal, he argued.

Barrister Ahsan said calls made from a mobile phone as mentioned in the affidavit of the chief of staff to the president belonged to the son of the CJ who was in Lahore.

At this, Malik Qayyum informed the court that the government had checked that the calls were made through the tower in Sector F-6/3 (Islamabad), meaning the cellphone was with the CJ at his residence.

“With this claim, the federal government accepts that the CJ was held incommunicado and other phone lines were blocked,” Barrister Ahsan said

The battle [between Chief Justice and President Musharraf] has ruined Musharraf’s authority and image in Pakistan like nothing has done before. Questions about the Pakistan army’s role in the country’s politics have been raised once again, but this time, far more seriously than ever before. And the battle, epitomised by the one between the chief justice and the president, is moving fast towards its logical conclusion.

I believe General Musharraf lost the half the battle the day Pakistan’s supreme court ordered the suspension of the hearing against Justice Chaudhry in the supreme judicial council and formed a bench of 13 judges to hear the case. Musharraf fears the 13-member supreme court bench will go with Justice Chaudhry and is planning another reference against the chief justice.

It will not be easy for Musharraf to continue his fight with the chief justice. He will ultimately ask his Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz to resign because it was he who sent the reference against the chief justice to the president.

Second, Musharraf will have to take off his uniform sooner or later, since otherwise it will be difficult for the West to continue supporting a military dictator.

In Pakistan, people have started believing that democratic forces will win this battle in the end and the army will go back to the barracks, this time forever.

This battle will have a negative short-term impact on Pakistan, with a lot of instability for four or five months.

But in the long term, it will bring a positive and long-lasting change in Pakistan, a change that is already visible in the hearts and minds of common Pakistanis. The majority of them want a true democracy, rule of law, supremacy of constitution, independence of judiciary, a strong parliament and freedom of media.

These are no more merely words, people are actually dreaming about it. But they cannot have all these things with a president in uniform sitting over their heads.

I would like to believe that Pervez Musharraf is the last military dictator in Pakistan.

The independent media has played a key role in creating and promoting democratic thinking in Pakistan in the last five years. These days, Musharraf’s power is being threatened not only by some upright judges, but also from a defiant media.

This is the first time the media is fighting back. Some newspaper editors and television channel owners tried to make underhand deals with the establishment, but a majority of working journalists threatened to revolt, even against their bosses.

Musharraf promulgated an anti-media ordinance few days ago just to clip the wings of some television anchors. The next day, I was one of those who led a protest inside the press gallery in the national assembly, the Pakistan parliament.

The government tried to silence our voice with help of some non-journalists who were sent inside the press gallery to resist us, but they were thrown out of the gallery by angry journalists.

The next day, the assembly speaker banned the entry of all journalists, who then staged another protest in front of parliament house. Finally, on Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz’s advice, the speaker banned just me. By banning my entry to parliament, they were trying to send the message that the government is not weak.

Let me not forget to mention America and its role in Islamabad.

I don’t think the Americans are interested in democracy for Pakistan. Democracy will not help them because democratic governments are answerable to their voters; Americans need a man in uniform who will be answerable to the donors instead of voters.

US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte, Assistant Secretary of State Richard A Boucher and the Commander, United States Central Command, Admiral William J Falcon arrived in Islamabad on June 16, and met Musharraf at the same time that Justice Chaudhry was going to Faisalabad to address the bar council.

The US team gave a strong message to the people of Pakistan that Washington is standing behind Musharraf. The troika was not in Islamabad to discuss democracy; they actually wanted Musharraf to do more against the Taliban and Al Qaeda [Images] in Pakistani tribal areas.

The American dilemma is quite obvious. Washington doesn’t want to lose Musharraf, because they have no substitute. No other political leader can bomb his own countrymen just to please Americans. He is their ‘frontline ally’ because they don’t have any other ally.

The US has failed in Afghanistan. The Taliban is back, Al Qaeda is back. Afghanistan will become another Iraq in the next few months. The Americans are also planning to use Musharraf against Iran. This is why they don’t want to lose him at this point of time.

India can only resolve its disputes with Pakistan when there is a democratic government in Islamabad. If Musharraf signs any deal with India in the coming days, the next government will not honour that deal.

The people of Pakistan hope that India, which is the biggest democracy in the world, should make deals only with elected political leaders, and not with old fashioned military dictators.

Well, what do you expect from retards who have seen nothing but the Raja Bazar of Rawalpindi or GHQ of Pakistan? To see or illustrate the great free western media which is known as Corporate Media’s responsibilities and reporting news that matter, let’s read on Ten important things Americans were not told about.

The fact that most Americans oppose the war in Iraq, and want the president impeached, is testimony to the native intelligence and common sense of the citizens of this nation.

It sure isn’t thanks to the quality of the news Americans’re getting here in America!

1. Most Americans would like to see this president and vice president impeached and removed from office. Newsweek magazine published a scientific poll last October showing that 51 percent of us favor impeachment (including 29 percent of Republicans!), but the corporate media, which normally haven’t met a poll they won’t publish, didn’t publicize this one. And now, when the numbers supporting impeachment are surely even higher, you can’t even pay a polling outfit to ask the question. No wonder most people who favor impeachment still think they’re odd ducks.

2. There is a bill, filed in the House of Representatives on April 24 by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), calling for the impeachment of Vice President Cheney. Since it was filed, it has gained six co-sponsors, including a member of the House Democratic leadership, Rep. Janice Shakowsky (D-IL). Most major media have ignored this important story completely. Most Americans also don’t know that the Vermont State Senate voted overwhelmingly this spring to call on Congress to impeach the president.

3. The president has been declared a felon in federal court. Yet even after Federal District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled last August that President Bush and the National Security Agency were committing serial Class A felonies and were violating both the First and Fourth Amendments by spying on Americans’ communications without first obtaining warrants, Bush continued ordering the NSA to continue the patently illegal program for at least half a year. In reports on the spying program, the corporate media never mention that it has been declared a felonious activity by the federal court.

4. Fifteen Democratic state party organizations have passed impeachment resolutions calling on Democrats in Congress to initiate impeachment proceedings against the president and vice president. The most recent of these, the Democratic Party of Oklahoma, passed its resolution at the party’s annual convention on May 19. Other Democratic Party conventions, in states from Nevada and California to Massachusetts and North Carolina, have passed similar resolutions. Most have been ignored by the corporate media even in their own states.

5. Bush’s so-called “coalition of the willing” is not so willing and is not really much of a coalition either. When’s the last time you’ve heard how many countries are on board with the US in the war and occupation of Iraq? The reality? Britain, the only significant contributor of combat troops besides the U.S., is pulling out, as Italy and Spain did earlier, and many other countries, like Denmark, Lithuania and others, plan to be out of Iraq by August or at the latest December. One indication of the seriousness of situation: the Pentagon no longer lists the countries that are members of the “coalition.” The only mainstream report I’ve seen laying out this collapse in international support for Bush’s war was in USA Today last February.

6. The Homeland Security Department last year awarded Halliburton $385 million in a no-bid contract to construct prison camps designed to hold tens of thousands of unspecified prisoners in the event of domestic unrest. Meanwhile, President Bush has signed a bill altering the insurrection act so that he can declare martial rule and order active duty troops to take charge anywhere in the domestic US in the event of “public disorder.” No one in the corporate media has reported on these developments or asked the White House to explain what it’s all about.

7. There is evidence that Cheney, as CEO of Halliburton, was a patron of the Washington Madam whose client book of high-class call-girls is causing many in Washington political circles—mostly Republicans it appears, who apparently need to pay for their sex—to sweat. So far no mention of the Cheney angle in the corporate media, though they’ve been having fun with the broader story of a political sex scandal. No mention either of how a brave West Point cadet a few weeks ago refused to shake Cheney’s hand on stage when the vice president was handing out this year’s diplomas at the Army’s premiere officer academy.

8. Among the “worst of the worst” of the “evildoers” captured and held as “enemy combatants” at Guantanamo were children, some of them preteens and kids who were under 15 when captured and brought to the island of Cuba–so many in fact that the military had to set up a special facility, called Camp Iguana, just for adolescent and pre-pubescent “fighters.” The corporate media have barely reported on this atrocity (the New York Times ran only one article mentioning child captives, in June 2005). The only wider coverage of this outrage came recently when the government tried to prosecute one such alleged child “terrorist”–Omar Khadr–only to have the military judge in charge toss his case out because the government had misclassified him. Khadr, we learned, was captured in 2001 in Afghanistan at the ripe age of 15, making him one of the older child captives brought to and interrogated at Guantanamo. Under international law, the U.S. was supposed to treat this and other child soldiers as victims, not as war criminals. Khadr, a Canadian by birth, instead has spent five years doing hard time in US captivity.

9. Well-researched reports on the rampant theft of both the 2000 and 2004 elections, and on Republican plans for theft of the 2008 election, such as Mark Crispin Miller’s Fooled Again, have gone unmentioned in the corporate media. Books on the subject, like Miller’s and like Greg Palast’s best selling Armed Madhouse, have never been reviewed.

10. And of course, there’s my own book. The Case for Impeachment, despite its having sold over 20,000 copies in hardcover, and despite its having now come out in a mass-market paperback edition, in both cases printed by a mainstream publisher, St. Martin’s Press, has not received a single review in the corporate media. In this, my co-author Barbara Olshansky and I are not alone. None of the books on the impeachable crimes of this administration, including one by Nixon-era impeachment panelist and former congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman, and one by Judiciary Chair Rep. John Conyers, has been reviewed by a mainstream media outlet.

What we’re talking about here is nothing less than a media blackout of important stories and news.

Thanks to the internet and to the grapevine, and thanks to their basic native intelligence, most Americans seem to understand that we’re being lied to and cheated. What the media blackout of important news does manage to do, however, is keep us all thinking that we are in a minority in opposing things like illegal wars, a trampled Constitution, and stolen elections.

In fact, however, we’re actually the majority. Once we realize this, maybe we will have a movement, instead of a just nation of isolated cynics and complainers.
______________________________

DAVE LINDORFF, a Philadelphia-based investigative journalist and columnist, is co-author, with Barbara Olshansky, of “The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006, and now out in paperback edition). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

While the sensational turn in the CJP fiasco continues, we now know that the military and non military intelligence agencies have accused CJP of demanding from them to spy on fellow justices and also to file a reference against 12 such judges. The military top leaders also gave out the names of those.

Now, accusing CJP is another issue but giving out names of the judges is a very wrongful deed from intelligence and judiciary’s point of view. Now you can expect these 12 gentlemen to be indignant about the position of CJP even if the affidavit of spy masters is false. Also, how would they produce information and intelligence reports to the court to support their points and allegations? Would they make it public that they have all the record of phone calls of CJP? and that they have been spying on Judges and so on. How on earth these spy masters got engaged in political and judicial spying and reporting and for how long has it been going on?
With so much information hopefully to be out soon, you could expect the face of things will never be the same ever again…

The lead council of CJP, Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan has already condemned and thrashed the affidavit saying it’s height of forgery and lies filled with aladdin tales and nothing else. He also did highlight the fact that the affidavit was written (as shown on the file of affidavit?) prior to the reference against CJP. WHOA. If that is the case, DG MI et al. should get ready for some roasting

Lies of no lies, the affidavit of DG MI and IB show how far the government will go to overthrow the CJP at any cost and also it raises the questions of the roles and territorial boundaries of intelligence agencies in Pakistan. I can’t wait to see some videos of Aitzaz Ahsan cross-examining DG of MI and asking him lewd stories of how dark the chapter of intelligence agencies in Pakistan really has been. Whoa, that would be some scene. Regardless of the outcome, no where in the history of Pakistan, some thing of this magnitude has ever been conceived or put into play.

The short version of COS and DG MI’s affidavit can be read and seen at APP.

Affidavit of DG IB.
I, Brig. (Retd.) ljaz Ahmed Shah son of Late Pir Ahmad Shah, presently working

as Director General, Intelligence Bureau, do hereby solemnly state on oath as

under:-

1. I was appointed as Director General, Intelligence Bureau (”DG IB”) in February, 2004, and have continued to work in that position todate.

2. That prior to my appointment as DG IB, 1 served as Home Secretary, Government of Punjab. In those clays I met Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Chief Justice of Pakistan (on forced leave) (”CJP”) and developed very cordial relations.

3. This continued after my appointment as DG IB. We frequently spoke

to and visited one another. During our meetings official work, the political situation, administrative problems and cases before the Supreme Court, amongst other things, were discussed by the CJP. Many times I took the initiative of visiting him and several times he did likewise. A number of times I also visited the CJP as per his desire. All these meetings were very very cordial and friendly.

4. That the CJP was very concerned about the media reports which he felt were damaging him. He asked me as DG IB to probe the matter and assist in suppressing these reports. The Federal Government had also asked me to conduct a discreet probe in the matter as the CJP had raised the issue in his meeting on 13 February 2007 with the President, as well.

5. On 9 March 2007 1 was asked to come to a meeting at the Camp Office of the President’s Secretariat. At 1300 hours I along with the Chief of Staff to the President, DG ISI and DG MI went to the President’s Chamber at the Camp Office. The President, the Prime Minister and the CJP were already there and so was the Military Secretary to the President.

6. That the President had received a Reference from the Prime Minister on 8 March 2007 along with the advice that the President submit this Reference lo the Supreme Judicial Council for an inquiry into the conduct of the CJP. That between 1300 hours and 1400 hours the details of the Reference and some of the findings of the intelligence agencies as a result of the exercise initiated at the behest of the CJP were discussed. That during the discussion the CJP clearly stated that he would face the Reference. In his affidavit the CJP has sought to create an impression that on his refusal to resign the President became furious stood up angrily and left the room. The President did not become furious.

Throughout the meeting he was calm, composed and respectful. He was neither angry nor did he leave in anger. He is also not accurate, as staled in his affidavit by the CJP, that he said to the President, ” I believe, that I am myself the guardian of law. I strongly believe in God who will help me”. Neither these words nor any words to such effect were used by CJP. This meeting concluded at 1400 hours and the President as well as the Prime Minister left for Jumma prayers. The Military Secretary to the President and the COS also left at the same time.

7. That thereafter myself, the CJP, DG ISI and DG MI continued our discussion on the various points and all the material and record was available in several folders.

8. That the discussion was courteous. There was no acrimonious exchange. No one made any threat. The CJP having clearly informed the President and the Prime Minister that he would face the Reference the question of any one of us making any demands of any kind on the CJP simply did not arise. The discussion was limited to the details of the Reference.

9. That at 1500 hours I and the DG ISI also left the meeting. The CJP and DG MI remained there and continued talking to one another.

10. That I have read the affidavit of Lt. Gen. (Retd) Hamid Javaid and this affidavit may be read in addition thereto.

II. That unless specifically so admitted nothing contained herein may be regarded as an admission of any adverse statement made by the CJP in his affidavit.

III. That whatever is stated herein above is true and correct.

More on this later…

Now interestingly, this ordinance is reported to be applied to INTERNET as well. Ah, another blow.

I am dumbfounded not by the sheer complexity of constitutional developments or amendments but actually by the sheer lack of intellect and common-sense among the ruling party and Musharraf himself. Alright, there. I said it. It should be considered as against “National Interest” and “contempt of honorable and respected Government of Pakistan“.

Talat Hussein, the director of news for one leading station, Aaj TV, told the BBC: “The government is getting frustrated… and the messenger is being killed for the message.”

He was critical of Gen Musharraf for pushing through legal amendments at a time when parliament is not in session.

“It’s a repressive law and it’s very clear that the government does not want any visuals on the TV screens which are against its policies,” Mr Hussein said.

The inspiration for these new rules came from none other than FOX and CNN as well as Chinese Government Policies. After all, we call chinese our brothers.

Dr. Shahid Masood has a very intriguing and worrying column at The News titled: Shoot The Messenger which rightfully resembles and point out centuries old tradition of shooting/killing the messenger who carries distasteful news. While the Government of Pakistan and top Military Brass doesn’t seem to stop or do anything about the Judicial crisis, they thought to put pressure and stop/ban the media who carries their failure stories. They thought to take some inspiration from notorious western media who licks the feet of its governments and has become so culpable of being sold any news the Government wants to that it would take many years and brave souls to eradicate the bad name to it.

Particularly related to western media, Dr. Shahid Masood writes:
Just as in politics, the media too has no permanent friends or enemies. The western media had in the aftermath of 9/11 declared General Pervez Musharraf as its greatest ally in its war on terror. Today, the same media is asking Musharraf to do more, raising questions about the US administration’s backing of the government in Islamabad. That only goes to show that the so-called ‘national interest’ can be a very myopic view of the reality and can induce governments to take wrong decisions.

The argument being used to justify gagging the media is that in the US and in other developed countries it stands behind the government in hours of need for the sake of ‘national interest’. While the basic premise of this contention is inaccurate, if not flawed, the hazards of such an approach has also translated into disastrous foreign policy decisions. The American media had an important role to play in the days leading up to the Iraq war and if it had not largely toed the government line, the Bush administration may have been spared of the ignominy it faces in Iraq and Afghanistan today. Isn’t this a classic example of how bulldozing the media in the name of ‘national interest’ can lead to disastrous consequences and tarnish the country’s image across the world as has happened in the case of the US?

In an editorial titled “Musharraf’s follies: When will the US hold the Pakistani president accountable for his abuse of power?” the Los Angeles Times compared the Bush administration’s support for Musharraf to the “terrible mistake” the US made in propping up three Cold War dictators who were ultimately swept from power by popular upheavals—the Shah of Iran, Nicaragua’s Anastasio Somoza, and the Philippines’ Ferdinand Marcos.

“Replace,” said the LA Times, “the words ‘reliably anti-communist’ with ‘reliable US ally in the war on terror,’ and despair at the Bush administration’s willingness to excuse heinous repression from Egypt to Saudi Arabia to Azerbaijan. Worst of all is its policy toward Pakistan, where the administration refuses to distance the US from the increasingly errant autocrat Pervez Musharraf.”

Bill Clinton’s Democratic administration made no fuss in the fall of 1999 when Musharraf, then as now the chief of Pakistan’s armed services, seized power. After all, the Pentagon has enjoyed an intimate partnership with Pakistan’s military since the early 1950s and Washington’s political establishment, for almost as long, has held the military to be the chief bulwark of a “stable Pakistan.”

But the Bush administration has not just acquiesced to military rule in Pakistan. It has lavished praise and gobs of money on the Musharraf regime, declared Pakistan a “major non-NATO ally” of the US, repeatedly hailed the general as a pivotal leader in the war on terror, and proclaimed the various maneuvers he has taken to perpetuate military rule and run roughshod over the country’s constitution as steps on the road to “full democracy.”

Till now the US media has essentially peddled the administration’s line. Certainly there has been no chorus of media voices pointing out the incongruity and downright absurdity of the Bush administration’s claims to have restored democracy in Afghanistan by entrenching military rule in Pakistan.

The New York Times inadvertently admitted its only complicity when in its May 23 editorial, “Propping up the General,” it counseled the Bush administration to “use the leverage it gets from [providing Islamabad] roughly $2 billion a year in aid to encourage an early return to democratic rule.” An early return—after seven years and seven months of military dictatorship!

If sections of the press have now “discovered” that Musharraf is a despot, it is because they fear that the general is losing his grip and are anxious about the consequences for US interests and influence in Pakistan, as well as for the US’s larger strategic ambitions in South Asia, Central Asia and the Middle East.

Since March, Pakistan has been convulsed by a mounting political crisis—a crisis that has precipitated the largest anti-government protests since Musharraf seized power and that has split the legal establishment.

The trigger for this crisis was Musharraf’s sacking of the chief justice of the Supreme Court, whom the general feared could not be relied upon to rubber stamp his phony “reelection” as president. But the opposition to the trumped-up corruption case against the chief justice is fueled by the absence of democracy, neo-liberal economic policies that have resulted in deepening social inequality and economic insecurity, and Musharraf’s support for US imperialism in its wars in Afghanistan and Iraq .

Desperate to stamp out the mounting challenge to his authority, Musharraf unleashed murderous violence on the streets of Karachi, Pakistan’s principal city, on May 12-13. More than 40 people were killed in two days of violence orchestrated by the thugs of the pro-Musharraf MQM in connivance with the authorities of Karachi and Sind province.

This bloodbath has only served to underscore the popular feeling that the Musharraf regime has become intolerable. As for Musharraf’s political cronies, they are publicly fighting amongst themselves as they seek to escape public opprobrium.

The Bush administration, meanwhile, has remained steadfast in its support for the general-president, issuing not a word of criticism of the Pakistani government in the wake of the violence in Karachi.

The editors of the New York Times, LA Times and Post are alarmed by what they perceive to be the Bush administration’s myopic policy of tying the fortunes of US imperialism to the hated and increasingly isolated Musharraf. Yet none of the three editorials calls for the US to repudiate Musharraf, let alone cut off relations with his government. They merely counsel Washington to broker a deal between the military and the principal bourgeois opposition parties, warning that otherwise a regime hostile to the US may ultimately come to power in Pakistan.

In fact, the Bush administration has signaled that it would like Musharraf to reach a deal with Benazir Bhutto and her Pakistan People’s Party (PPP). But such a deal has floundered over the division of the prerogatives and spoils of office, and the Bush administration fears that without the iron fist of military rule Pakistan could become embroiled in class and ethnic conflicts menacing to US interests.

There is also, undoubtedly, concern in the Bush administration that a change of regime in Islamabad could endanger various sordid, secret operations that US military and security forces are currently carrying out in Pakistan, including the warehousing and torture of alleged terrorists and training exercises for an attack on Iran.

Whilst fear that Musharraf is stoking a popular rebellion that could threaten US interests is the principal reason sections of the press are now calling for the Bush administration to distance itself from the general and begin planning for a “post-Musharraf Pakistan,” it is not the only reason.

Put bluntly, many sections of the US establishment don’t think they are getting their money’s worth from Musharraf. That is to say, they do not think he has been sufficiently pliant in acting on US demands that his government root out Taliban operatives who have found refuge in Pakistan’s border areas with Afghanistan and violently suppress a growing indigenous tribal/Taliban insurgency in north and western Pakistan.

All three editorials combine complaints about Musharraf’s authoritarian rule with sniping that the general has proven a poor bargain for US imperialism. “Congress,” declared the New York Times, “must insist that future payments [to Pakistan] be linked to actual counterterrorist activity and results, as some American military officials now recommend.”

The Pakistani people have suffered horrendously under the yoke of a string of US armed and sponsored military regimes. The regime of General Ayub Khan (1958-69) ruthlessly suppressed the working class and toilers, while pursuing an industrialization policy that enriched a tiny elite, the so-called 20 families. US President Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger encouraged his successor, Yaya Khan, in mounting a campaign of bloody repression against the Bangla-speaking people of East Pakistan (Bangladesh), who had been denied their basis rights within the Pakistan federation. This campaign resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands and caused millions more to seek refuge in India.

But in many ways it was the dictatorship of General Zia-ul Haq (1977-88) that has proven the most destructive to the social fabric of Pakistan. The US made Zia’s regime the pivot of its strategy of fanning, in alliance with the Saudi regime, an Islamic fundamentalist rebellion against Afghanistan’s pro-Soviet government and ensnaring the Soviet Red Army in a counterinsurgency war. Pakistan’s role in arming and organizing the Islamicist insurgency in Afghanistan dove-tailed with Zia’s own efforts to use Islam to legitimize his regime and to promote the religious right as a bulwark against the working class and all progressive thought.

Two decades on, Pakistan continues to lives with the consequences of the US-backed dictator Zia’s Afghan adventure and promotion of Islamicist politics—everything from deep and oftentimes violent cleavages between different Muslim sects and a widespread drug and Kalashnikov culture, to the existence of a well-organized and financed network of Islamicist institutions, political parties and militias.

“One reason” General Musharraf “is unpopular, conceded the Washington Post, “is his alliance with the United States.”

Yet the PPP, Nawaz Sharif’s PML (N) and the rest of the bourgeois opposition clutch to the coattails of the US, hoping—seven-and-a-half-years of rebuffs notwithstanding—that they can convince the Bush administration they can better serve the US’s predatory interests than Musharraf.

The venal Pakistani bourgeoisie has always sought to gain money and geopolitical influence by serving imperialist interests. Before Washington, it looked to London.

But the opposition’s appeals to Washington are above all grounded in its fears that any popular mobilization against the Musharraf regime could escape its control, undermine the military, and become a threat to the bourgeois order. Second only to the Pakistani military itself do the Benzair Bhuttos and Nawaz Sharifs look to the imperialist powers, and above all the US, as the bulwark of their own privileges, of a socioeconomic order that condemns the vast majority of Pakistanis to a life of poverty, ignorance and squalor.

Also, see

“The term justice is not to be interpreted in a narrow and pedantic sense. It encompasses political justice, economic justice and social justice. No individual or a nation can attain optimum level or their potentialities in case of denial of either political, economic or social justice. True and unalloyed justice, transcends the boundaries of cast, creed, and colour. It is universal and for the entire mankind. This is the theme of all revealed religions and Allah the Almighty loves those who act equitably.”
Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry

Ivan Eland, the author, is an American defense analyst and author as well as an ex- director of Defense Policy Studies at the Cato Institute. I don’t think I fully agree with Mr. Eland but he’s mostly right on many points. He writes:

The Bush administration has failed to capture or kill Osama bin Laden or to win the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Now, the administration has also missed the chance to maintain a stable nuclear-armed Pakistan. Like the U.S. policy toward the Shah’s Iran in the 1960s and 1970s, the Bush administration, despite a rhetorical commitment to spread democracy around the world, has put all of its eggs in the basket of an autocrat unlikely to survive—in this case, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf. Although Musharraf has used the U.S. war on terror to play the United States like a fiddle, the Bush administration believes there is no better alternative. Unfortunately, backing Musharraf could create a nuclear-armed Pakistan controlled by radical Islamists.
Unfortunately, Pakistan probably has already been “lost,” and U.S. policy has played an important role in its demise. U.S. policymakers have repeatedly underestimated the consequences of the deep unpopularity engendered by profligate U.S. government meddling in the affairs of other countries. In Iran, although the Shah’s government was brutal, the regime also became so identified with its unpopular U.S. benefactor that the United States became a major contributing factor in its collapse and replacement with a militant and enduring Islamist substitute.

While Eland is right on many fronts esp. the immoral and self-contradictory policy of supporting a dictator, I think he too is falsely fearful of the growing pressure and support of Islamic-cum-Political Parties (namely MMA et al.) as well as resurgents in Waziristan and NWFP. While I don’t think I could highlight and defend this at great lengths now but would like to add that today’s Pakistan is not very much like 70’s Iran. I think Pakistan has a lot bigger and better social and economic infrastructure as compared with yesteryears’ Iran. The almost indifferent elite business and industrialist class is only too powerful to control the political Nazims and MNAs in Pakistan. Much like the growth of suicide bombers and islamic militancy, there has been a silent but gradual growth of anti-religious sentiments and more importantly a strong need of more social and religious freedom not only among urban corners of the big cities but quietly among the other factions as well. Right now, NWFP and some parts of Punjab and Sindh are populated with these extremist factions (Sunni-Shia militants) but largely they remain cut-off from the mainstream life’s happening and have little to no knowledge about anything but the basic Prayer and more of the other fundamental religious issues.

Even if Musharraf is removed either through a coup or by political parties’ pressure, Army still can and would defend its territorial boundaries. To this day, I believe one of the biggest flaws and shortcomings of Pakistan Army and Armed Forces remain the ineffectiveness and traditional military hierarchy needs of ISPR (Inter Services Public Relations department of Armed Forces). More on that in a separate post, hopefully. Even though there are quiet elements of distaste and discomfort among military officers of lesser ranks, the top brass and even red-stripe officers remain focused on supporting Musharraf through thick and thin. The reach of these fewer militant groups to the country’s sensitive installations is not only very limited but their approach towards creating the so-called better islamic regime is only too naive,IMHO. I have met few of my neighbors who came from Waziristan after Taliban penetrated in the region and started talibanizing the folks, the contempt and disgust these original inhabitants of Waziristan and NWFP Province feel against these so-called warriors of islam can be easily felt.

Yes, as Mr Eland suggest that Bush must immediately stop support of Musharraf in a fashion that would only help instability and lack of democracy in Pakistan, the US policy makers and defence planners must re-think of their evaluations of continued support of a military leader who should leave the throne while he’s alive.

Mr Eland further goes on:
Given Musharraf’s unenthusiastic pursuit of al Qaeda in Pakistan, why does the United States continue to support him? The answer is mainly a fear of “instability” — read, any change of leadership in a nuclear weapons state. The United States fears that the only alternative to Musharraf in a nuclear-armed Pakistan is the Islamic militants; but this outcome is actually more likely if the unpopular United States continues to zealously back Musharraf.

At the same time Musharraf’s popularity has faded. He has faced mass protests across Pakistan for his increased despotism and his suspension of the country’s chief justice. Musharraf feared that the judge, Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry, might issue rulings that would interfere with his attempt to have the parliament elect him to another five-year term. In addition, several former Pakistani generals have talked openly about overthrowing him in a coup. But it may be too late to control a coup and reestablish military rule. The Islamists have been strengthened by Musharraf’s suppression of alternative non-Islamic opposition parties; Musharraf has said that their leaders—exiled former prime ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif—will not be allowed to return for upcoming parliamentary elections.

I am not too sure how his comment on if Bush stop and remove its forces from Afghanistan will cool Taliban is valid or not. Historically and much more importantly in the recent times, Afghanistan is only too weak (economically and politically) with growing hatred and abundance of social unrest. Taliban has never been or ever will be a peaceful faction and with the Northern alliance and other distasteful groups ready to kill each other on the name of same islam they are trying to promote. So much for the one god.

Yes, a continued moral and financial support and a UN peacekeeping forces deployment until things start getting better in Afghanistan will rather be something, I believe, USA and Pakistan should be looking forward. Only a financially and socially prospering Afghanistan will ensure a safe and peaceful evacuation of Afghan Immigrants who’re ready to live miserable lives in the biggest city of the country as long as it’s not worse than Afghanistan right now. This peaceful and safe place will not only ensure less problems inside Pakistan but also better democracies than the allies of Bush will have you believe.

Musharraf’s own future may depend on the outcome. He is likely to face several legal challenges in the Supreme Court this year as he seeks re-election as president while continuing to serve as the chief of the army staff, the highest military post in the country. Seven and a half years after Musharraf seized power in a coup, calls are growing around the country for a change from military rule.
Hamilton Spectator

But the biggest bomb of yesterday’s hearing was the affidavit filed by Aitzaz Ahsan and CJP Iftikhar Ch. and there are some revelations Musharraf wouldn’t have liked. What CJP Iftikhar Ch. said in the affidavit can be noted down in following points:

President General Pervez Musharraf told him on March 9 that he would be “accommodated” if he resigned.
2- In the affidavit, Justice Chaudhry revealed the inside story of his March 9 ‘forced stay’ at Army House in Rawalpindi, where he was left with intelligence chiefs for five hours after he refused to resign. He said that he was allowed to go home unceremoniously only after he was stripped of his judicial powers and his official vehicle was stripped of the national flag and official insignia.
3- In the affidavit under oath the CJP said that his chamber was sealed by intelligence agencies and that the newly appointed SC registrar gave some important files to the ISI. (The same registrar is DEAD now. Coincidence?)
4- According to the affidavit, CJP said that he reached Army House at 11:30 am on March 9 with his protocol staff. Five minutes later, President Musharraf came into the room in his military uniform along with his military secretary and ADC.
5- A number of TV cameramen and photographers were also called in.
6- The president told him about a complaint against him by a Peshawar High Court judge and some other complaints. (Didn’t President said he took the notice himself and then said Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz filed a complaint against CJP. I mean, are we friggin’ nuts or Musharraf just so vehemently looks down upon his nation that he can say whatever he wants to and yet get away with it?)
7- Then he directed his staff to call other persons including his chief of staff (COS), the prime minister, chiefs of the Military Intelligence (MI), Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) and Intelligence Bureau (IB) and another official. All officials, except the IB chief and the COS, were in uniform, the CJP said. (Bingo)
8- Justice Chaudhry said that the president read out the allegations against him from small pieces of paper, as there was no consolidated document, and the allegations were based on a “notorious letter” written by lawyer Naeem Bukhari.
9- The CJP was accused of being driven in a Mercedes, to which he replied: “Here is the prime minister, ask him, he has sent the car himself.” On this, the PM did not reply even by gesture, the CJP said.
10- “I was kept there absolutely against my will till 5pm. I was stopped there on one pretext or the other and at one stage was told the president will once again see me. “After 5pm, the MI chief told me `This is a bad day. Now you are taking a separate way and you are informed that you have been restrained from working as a judge of the Supreme Court or the Chief Justice of Pakistan’.”
11- He said that he had been detained along with his family members including his infant child of seven years from the evening of March 9, 2007 till March 13. He had to walk till the other end of the road when the police officer confronted him and manhandled him as has now been established by a judicial enquiry.
12- Even a retired judge of the Apex Court Mr Justice (R) Munir A Sheikh was not allowed to meet him.
13- He said he believed that his entire house has been bugged and at the Sindh House which is located right opposite the residence of the deponent, the officials of the agencies other than police have established a place therein to keep an eye on those who come and visit him. (while many people would easily believe that, for some others, former IB chief Masood Sharif has admitted in the Geo Program “Merey Mutabiq” that the surveillance of important political and non-political parties and persons including their kidnappings happen without court’s notice or knowledge. Whoa. Some discipline)
14- When Aitzaz Ahsan told the SC full court hearing the CJP’s petition about the filing of the affidavit on Tuesday, Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday, who heads the full court, said he should not have done this, BBC Urdu reported.
http://www.dawn.com/2007/05/30/top1.htm
Later at AAJ TV in the program ‘Bolta Pakistan’ Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan, who’s representing CJP Iftikhar Ch., was asked whether it was true that Justice Ramday remarked ‘he (CJP) shouldn’t have done it’ Aitzaz Ahsan twisted the answer but you could only make out he meant it didn’t happen that way. Now the cat’s out of the bag and she’s meoowing.

It’s a message of hope, love and happiness and all the good days to come. Our very dear and loved Instructor Maj. Waseem Butt used to say, one who isn’t loved (doesn’t possess love) can’t give love. I have hope and I pass it on to you so you keep it alive.

Several thousand of Mr Chaudhry’s supporters were with him, some chanting “Go, Musharraf, go”. The former chief justice had been surrounded by supporters on the 5km journey from his home to the court, and took more than two hours to get there.

The president is accused of trying to stifle the independence of the judiciary in an election year, and protests over the judge have snowballed into a campaign against the government.

Observers have said Mr Chaudhry is offering an alternative to Pakistan’s military rule, with an independent judiciary and a return to civilian government.

Reuters India isn’t silent on the worsening condition of Musharraf’s grip over power:
As Musharraf has come under fire for this perceived attack on the independence of the judiciary, his political allies have shown themselves unable to protect him.

Cracks are showing in the ruling Pakistan Muslim League, a party cobbled together after Musharraf’s 1999 coup, while its coalition partner, the Muttahida Quami Movement, is tainted by involvement in the Karachi violence.

The remaining pillars of support for Musharraf come from the army and the United States. Any sign of either of those creaking could be decisive.

Musharraf has looked flustered during television appearances in recent days and the tension among ordinary Pakistanis is palpable, particularly after the bloodbath in Karachi.

Herald Tribune reports in Pakistan’s suspended chief justice makes veiled criticism of military president on live TV:

About 8,000 jubilant lawyers and supporters from opposition parties gathered outside the court building, chanting slogans against Musharraf.

A clash between Chaudhry supporters and a government party killed 41 people in the southern city of Karachi two weeks ago. The violence generated sharp criticism of Musharraf at home and abroad amid claims that his supporters instigated the clashes with the apparent tacit support of security forces, which stood by without intervening.

Even CNN speaks out:

Pakistan’s suspended Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry warned against centralized power in a thinly disguised criticism of President Pervez Musharraf, without ever mentioning him by name.

Musharraf appointed Chaudhry to the court in 2005, but the judge fell from favor after exercising independence from the government in a number of cases involving the disappearance of terrorist suspects and human rights activists.

Guardian also notes on the same lines:

Musharraf plans to seek another five-year term as president this fall. Political parties who have been sidelined since he seized power in a 1999 coup say the president wanted to get rid of the independent-minded judge in anticipation of legal challenges to his intention of seeking the new term while remaining head of the army. The government denies the move was politically motivated and says the judge had abused his office.

Boston Globe has a piece of advice (finally) for President Bush:

Musharraf has provoked anger in several quarters: from lawyers appalled at his suspension of Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry; from tribal members in Baluchistan furious at the army’s killing of a revered leader; from some tribal leaders who resent a regional warlord who killed hundreds of pro-Taliban Uzbek militants with backing from the Pakistani military; and from moderate Muslims who worry that nothing has been done to punish Islamist radicals who recently kidnapped an alleged brothel owner and destroyed music and video stores in Islamabad.

But these are matters for Pakistanis to decide, without lectures from an (US) administration that has been no more competent at promoting democratic change abroad than at coping with the aftermath of a hurricane.

Now, NDTV (along with many other news sources) report that:
According to a new biography of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz failed to charm her despite desperate attempts.

The book says that during her visit to Pakistan in March 2005, Aziz tried ”this savile row suited gigolo kind of charm, staring into Rice’s eyes”.

However, Rice stared him down and by the end of the meeting he was ”babbling” and shifting ”uncomfortably”.

According to the biography, Aziz bragged to Western diplomats that he could conquer any woman in two minutes, but failed miserably with Rice.

Brisbane Times from Australian continent also agrees:
“When Rice sat down with Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz, who fancied himself as a ladies’ man, Aziz puffed himself up and held forth in what he obviously thought was his seductive baritone. He bragged - to Western diplomats, no less - that he could conquer any woman in two minutes.”

Mr Aziz, who is married with three children, was out of luck

“There was this test of wills where he was trying to use all his charms on her as a woman, and she just basically stared him down,” the newspaper quotes Mabry, a senior correspondent with Newsweek, as writing.

“By the end of the meeting he was babbling. The Pakistanis were shifting uncomfortably. And his voice visibly changed.”

Aitzaz Ahsan condemned the past judges’ acceptance and adaptibility to “Doctrine of Necessity” which was invented to safeguard the interests (and skins) of then judges who had to accept any or all military rulers and their decisions in the history of Pakistan. It’s such an irony that the same military regimes who come marching in on the premise of bad governance of civil political parties and yet the very same military regimes, after having ruled the country for such long years, left the country almost in same state (if we discount the both sides allegations).

It is time to take stock of what military rule has accomplished in Pakistan. General Musharraf is the fourth in a line of army chiefs who seized power on essentially the same pretext: getting rid of venal politicians, saving the economy from bankruptcy, and preserving the security and integrity of the country. None of the past three military rulers successfully achieved these goals, and all of them left their office involuntarily.

Aitazaz Ahsan also insisted that for right distribution of power and independence of judiciary, judges must come forward and become role models by fighting for the very rights the courts stand for.

Justice Muneer A Malik, who is defending Chief Justice Iftikhar on Musharraf’s reference against him was the most impressive in terms of witty and thoughtful speech. I always jokingly call him an intellectual and not a lawyer but then again all great lawyers were also great intellectuals.
He emphatically stated that the independence of judiciary is a long journey and that every long journey starts with a small step which we are already undertaking. Muneer A Malik quoted the famous example of Chief Justice Sir Edward Cook in the era of James I, king of England. He also quoted a very famous saying of French Statesman, Charles De Gaulle which was only too sharply relevant to the disturbing situation of Pakistan Army’s increasing involvement and dependence on civil society for its operations and sustainability.

Muneer A Malik concluded with a thunderous slogan of “No Army can stop the march of an idea the time for which has come” And yet the most euphoric and iconic point in his speech was his soliloquy (sort of) when he contemplates, what’s at stake here (in defending Chief Justice and independence of Judiciary), is it my life? No, it’s not my life. It’s the lives of my two sons”.
Wow, I haven’t had a chance of listening to a Pakistani speaker in recent times with such eloquence and clarity of thought and yet resoluteness of ideas and conviction that he’s so filled with.

Addressing a televised, packed seminar on the separation of government powers, Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, who was suspended two months ago, called judicial independence a “bulwark against abuse of power.”

“Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” Chaudhry said, slightly misquoting 19th century British historian Lord Acton. “The courts must be independent. Courts should remain free from the pressure of the executive.”

CJP further added that, “Abuse of power often occurs in a system of governance where there is centralisation of all power in one person or in one institution and that is dangerous.”

Now that the seminar is over and despite the Supreme Court’s decree that no political remarks be made in any lawyers’ seminars or public meetings, the whole auditorium roared with “Go Musharraf Go” slogans and many others on the same lines, what remains is to see the unresting situation at Government’s decision makers’ heads and not to forget our military generals.
Oh, talking about Military Generals, how about a serious and details look at what our Army is made of (structure wise) and how democratic is army (of any country) despite many claims of the Military Head and twin of President Bush (in his stupidities).