Pakistan President declares emergency rule

Dave!

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSCOL19928320071103?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=69

I don't know enough about the situation TBH... but Sky News are saying that a Supreme Court ruling will soon determine if Musharraf's election is unconstitutional (because he was head of the army while running, I think).

Is there a legitimate reason to declare emergency rule, or is this simply to hold onto power and prevent democratic rule?

Mick86

DaveMcG wrote: »

Is there a legitimate reason to declare emergency rule, or is this simply to hold onto power and prevent democratic rule?

He's got an emergency ongoing giving him the excuse to dispose of a few hindrances to his rule. Bad news if you are Pakistani.

flogen

I don't think you could call it legitimate.

His reason apparently is that the Supreme Court is too politicisied - his real reason is almost certainly that they could deem his rule unconstitutional (which they can't do if there's no constitution!)... that said those two stories can and do fit side by side too, in that if the Supreme Court was politicised it may deem his election unconstitutional based on opinion rather than law.

Either way, it simply ensures that democracy is not going to come to Pakistan soon and it's hard to imagine Musharraf stepping away from power easily when he's doing things like this.

Bren_M.Records

I think Pakistan is in for a very rough couple of decades to be honest.
Thats if Pakistan as we know it is even around in twenty years!
About the only thing the peoples of Pakistan have in common is that the majority of them are Sunni Muslim.
Much of the west of the country including the North West Frontier Province and the the Tribal belt including the Waziristans are ethnic Pashtun's and have more in common with the people of South and Eastern Afghanistan than many of their fellow Pakistani nationals.
In the South of Pakistan is Baluchistan which makes up over a quater of the whole land mass of Pakistan and these people are like a subsect of the Pashtuns who again have more in common with the people of the extreme South of Afghanistan and the East of Iran.

I think the real nightmare is a sort of Pashtuni/Baluchistan type country as there are about 50 million who ethnically belong to these groups and are deeply radicalised by the decades of being used as pawns in other peoples wars.
This is of course way down the road if it even happens but the outline of such a fracture is already starting to take place in Afghanistan and Pakistan and this latest move by Musharaff only adds to the problems long term for the country.

Heres an article by Jason Burke which was recently in the Guardain about a Pashtun/Balochi area of Pakistan

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2201346,00.html

Mr.Micro

Musharraf is a dictator and the high court ruling may well have shown that he was illegally elected president .He is no more interested in democracy than any other dictator.He allowed the Taleban to be armed and supplied and now it has all backed fired on the evil brute.He is responsible for thousands of deaths .

djpbarry

Mr.Micro wrote: »

He allowed the Taleban to be armed and supplied and now it has all backed fired on the evil brute.

I wouldn't be a fan of Musharraf but I wouldn't say he is an "evil brute". I'm not sure what you are implying in saying he "allowed" the Taliban arm itself in NWFP. You're not actuallly suggesting he is in league with the Taliban, are you?

flogen wrote:

His reason apparently is that the Supreme Court is too politicisied

Hardly surprising given his recent treatment of Justice Chaudhry.

flogen wrote:

his real reason is almost certainly that they could deem his rule unconstitutional

Agreed. He seems unprepared to give up his "second skin".

flogen

djpbarry wrote: »

I wouldn't be a fan of Musharraf but I wouldn't say he is an "evil brute". I'm not sure what you are implying in saying he "allowed" the Taliban arm itself in NWFP. You're not actuallly suggesting he is in league with the Taliban, are you?

Hardly surprising given his recent treatment of Justice Chaudhry.

True, and of course it's a bullshít argument because he has no problem in politicising the judiciary as long as it's in his favour.

Agreed. He seems unprepared to give up his "second skin".

Power corrupts, total power etc. etc.

Mick86

Of course the most important consideration is who ends up with their finger on Pakistan's nuclear trigger.

Mr.Micro

djpbarry wrote: »

I wouldn't be a fan of Musharraf but I wouldn't say he is an "evil brute". I'm not sure what you are implying in saying he "allowed" the Taliban arm itself in NWFP. You're not actuallly suggesting he is in league with the Taliban, are you?

Hardly surprising given his recent treatment of Justice Chaudhry.

Agreed. He seems unprepared to give up his "second skin".

Pakistan supplied arms to the Taleban and allowed their proliferation many even seeing the Taleban as ideological and the way to go.Officially it was denied that Pakistan did this but Afghanistan is a corridor that Pakistan wanted control of and by using the Taleban it sought to do so indirectly never thinking how crazy the Taleban are and uncontrollable they have proved to be.

jonny72

Mick86 wrote: »

Of course the most important consideration is who ends up with their finger on Pakistan's nuclear trigger.

I was reading recently that the US actually has a plan to take control of Pakistan's nukes in case of political meltdown/whatever. Too many extremists in that country.

Mr.Micro

jonny72 wrote: »

I was reading recently that the US actually has a plan to take control of Pakistan's nukes in case of political meltdown/whatever. Too many extremists in that country.

I cant really see ,with respect how the US could do this as it would not be acceptable to the Pakistani people and it would need a major force of soldiers.The irony is that such a volatile country as this is allowed to keep nuclear weapons and Iran is not allowed at all . Cannot get my head around it ????

djpbarry

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Pakistan supplied arms to the Taleban and allowed their proliferation many even seeing the Taleban as ideological and the way to go.

The Taliban certainly does not have the support of "many" people in Pakistan.

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Officially it was denied that Pakistan did this but Afghanistan is a corridor that Pakistan wanted control of and by using the Taleban it sought to do so indirectly never thinking how crazy the Taleban are and uncontrollable they have proved to be.

No, not really. Musharraf has voiced his "support" for Afghanistan in the past, but his hands are tied on this issue - a large number of Pakistanis have Afghan blood. His main concern was preventing Afghanistan (one of the poorest countries in the world) from being attacked by the US.

Besides, if Musharraf truly supported Taliban ideals, why has Sharia law not been imposed in Pakistan?

Mr.Micro wrote: »

The irony is that such a volatile country as this is allowed to keep nuclear weapons and Iran is not allowed at all . Cannot get my head around it ????

Highly unlikely that Musharraf will ever use nukes, but, no nation should possess such weapons.

Mr.Micro

In reply DJPBARRY, control of Afghanistan was the real objective of Pakistan .As we know countries will use methods and means to do so ,in this case arming the Taliban .Its like the US using Pakistan ,Saudia Arabia and several other countries that have dictatorships ,it does not mean the US admires their ideology its purely business ,a means to an end. Its not a case of Musharraf using nuclear weapons, its what happens if such a country became fragmented and civil war broke out then control would be lost.

djpbarry

Mr.Micro wrote: »

control of Afghanistan was the real objective of Pakistan

My question was, what are you basing this on?

Mr.Micro wrote: »

As we know countries will use methods and means to do so ,in this case arming the Taliban

During the Soviet war, the Mujahideen were funded by the US, not Pakistan - the funds merely passed through Zia. In doing so, Zia voiced his opposition to communism, rather than support for the Mujahideen. Besides, most of his cabinet were opposed to involvement in the conflict.

Dave!

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL0449460320071105?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=69

Protesting lawyers get batoned and teargased

nacho libre

djpbarry wrote: »

I wouldn't be a fan of Musharraf but I wouldn't say he is an "evil brute". I'm not sure what you are implying in saying he "allowed" the Taliban arm itself in NWFP. You're not actuallly suggesting he is in league with the Taliban, are you?
.

I think he and some of his former friends in the ISI at one time were supporters of the Taliban. He turned on the Taliban when George gave him the option of joining the 'coalition of the willing' or face Pakistan being bombed back to the stone age.

djpbarry

nacho libre wrote: »

I think he and some of his former friends in the ISI at one time were supporters of the Taliban.

I doubt it. Musharraf is a moderate (in religious terms). He takes his lead from people such as Ataturk rather than religious fundamentalism.

nacho libre wrote: »

He turned on the Taliban when George gave him the option of joining the 'coalition of the willing' or face Pakistan being bombed back to the stone age.

I wouldn't say he "turned on the Taliban" so much as he was forced to side with the US.

Mr.Micro

djpbarry wrote: »

I doubt it. Musharraf is a moderate (in religious terms). He takes his lead from people such as Ataturk rather than religious fundamentalism.

I wouldn't say he "turned on the Taliban" so much as he was forced to side with the US.

AS I posted earlier you do not have to be a fan of a group to use them for your means . Musharraf as you say is not a fundamentalist but he had ambitions for Afghanistan .The US will fund anybody against the Communists but the Taliban are completely different and the Mughadeen lost the war against the Taliban .

djpbarry

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Musharraf as you say is not a fundamentalist but he had ambitions for Afghanistan

What are you basing that on? It would appear to be your own opinion.

Mr.Micro

djpbarry wrote: »

What are you basing that on? It would appear to be your own opinion.

No its not my opinion .Geographically Afghanistan is seen as an east west corridor and an oil and gas pipeline was planned to go through it So it is an important area if you had control of it .Since Afghanistan has been in a state of war for so long any such plans are on hold but when the Russians left the war started between the Mughadeen and the Taliban ,the latter as I have said supported by many in Pakistan . Since then as we know the Taliban lost to the US and Pakistan appeared to embrace the Americans post 9/11.

smirkingmaurice

I think its none of our business whats going on in pakistan, sure whats the point in us worrying about it

KIVES

smirkingmaurice wrote: »

I think its none of our business whats going on in pakistan, sure whats the point in us worrying about it

It's dismissive idea's like that which has the Indian sub continent and in the fractious state it's in today...I think it's in everybody's interest to be healthily concerned at such issues.It's more important than the price of lame ferrets you know

smirkingmaurice

The pakistani's really could do without the attention considering the political climate there at the mo,sometimes its better to ignore that kind of thing and be a bit more positive

KIVES

My best friends Auntie works for the UN Humanitarian Section and she visited Pakistan last Autumn-she said the amount of opposition to Mustaraff was frightening-anti-American strain of public opinion were rife and the only thing that was holding it all together was the Army's support for the general...She said Karachi was a den of iniquity far removed from the more straightlined+disciplined culture of Islamabad-She generally knows her stuff

smirkingmaurice

A friend of mine went backpacking there 4 years ago, never came back but still sends postcards, says its dirt cheap out there

smirkingmaurice

Says its really hot too, like an asian mediteranean, miles of beaches and the likes

smirkingmaurice

He's invited me out, he stays in a nice wee cottage up the north at the foot of the mountains during the winter, catch a bit of snow and the likes. The locals he says couldn't give a rats arse about politics so I might head out yet

moe_sizlak

smirkingmaurice wrote: »

He's invited me out, he stays in a nice wee cottage up the north at the foot of the mountains during the winter, catch a bit of snow and the likes. The locals he says couldn't give a rats arse about politics so I might head out yet

sounds like he could be a convert to osama,s team

KIVES

moe_sizlak wrote: »

sounds like he could be a convert to osama,s team

There is another line of thinking that rings through aswell-like every country on earth 30% or more of the population are so detached from Politics that their lives meander onwards regardless...sounds as if this guy is setting up the first all purpose Pakistani ski-ing resort - an Asian Val-de-Ser...

smirkingmaurice

thankfully he says he's no intentions of upsetting anyone out there with his secular ways, says the only thing he ever fought over was a cut of goats leg from the local butcher,misunderstanding over the weight or something,says he'll spend another year or two over and why not eh!!

jonny72

80% of Pakistanis are illiterate.. a country with nuclear weapons.. extremists.. some of the biggest illegal gun markets in the world.. a military dictator..

Very volatile altogether..

Nick_oliveri

Bush supports him but thinks what he did over the weekend was very wrong.. or so Sky News tells me. I think this is bollocks tbh, then they started talking about if the Government got overthrown and the big boom weapons came out/ were in the wrong hands. Ahmedinajad and the coup leaders of Pakistan will have a nuclear orgy.:rolleyes:

Bush will be very careful now with his Dicktator friend in "teh war aginst errorism". Its all a joke. And they invaded Iraq for lies. How about stabilising another country for the truth...

Nerin

ive been tryin to follow this story for a while,it seems a powderkeg is just waiting to go off

Mr.Micro

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Bush supports him but thinks what he did over the weekend was very wrong.. or so Sky News tells me. I think this is bollocks tbh, then they started talking about if the Government got overthrown and the big boom weapons came out/ were in the wrong hands. Ahmedinajad and the coup leaders of Pakistan will have a nuclear orgy.:rolleyes:

Bush will be very careful now with his Dicktator friend in "teh war aginst errorism". Its all a joke. And they invaded Iraq for lies. How about stabilising another country for the truth...

Bush chooses like minded friends like Musharraf.Whats Bush going to do now as another terror threat in the form of an unstable Pakistan is a possibility ? Invade ?

Nerin

its ironic how over the years people america supported in foreign countrys turn round and bite them in the ass.
was watchin the news this morning,and theyve blocked all mobile phone signal to stop the judge under house arrest giving a sppech to the lawyers...
this is gonna get nasty

Mr.Micro

I agree what has all the US meddling achieved .More chaos it appears .We are no nearer to winning the war on terror now than 5 years ago.US backed Saddam against Iran .

djpbarry

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Geographically Afghanistan is seen as an east west corridor and an oil and gas pipeline was planned to go through it So it is an important area if you had control of it .Since Afghanistan has been in a state of war for so long any such plans are on hold but when the Russians left the war started between the Mughadeen and the Taliban ,the latter as I have said supported by many in Pakistan . Since then as we know the Taliban lost to the US and Pakistan appeared to embrace the Americans post 9/11.

That says nothing about Musharraf’s plans for Afghanistan. You have reached the conclusion that he is planning an annex?

jonny72 wrote: »

80% of Pakistanis are illiterate..

51% per cent, actually.

jonny72 wrote: »

a country with nuclear weapons.. extremists.. some of the biggest illegal gun markets in the world.. a military dictator.

And your point is?

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Bush will be very careful now with his Dicktator friend in "teh war aginst errorism".

With respect, Musharraf had little choice other than to support the US effort in the so-called war.

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Bush chooses like minded friends like Musharraf.

In fairness, Bush and Musharraf have little in common!

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Whats Bush going to do now as another terror threat in the form of an unstable Pakistan is a possibility ?

Not a very strong possibility. It’s unlikely at this point that Pakistan will become an Islamic fundamentalist state – there is not nearly enough support for such a move.

RedPlanet

Hmm, i'm wondering where o where are those posters whom are supposedly perturbed over the concept of an independent judiciary (i'm referring specifically to the Chavez thread).
Why aren't they here posting their horror and disgust at events?
Imagine if it were Chavez striking out the Constitution and arresting lawyers; we'd see pages upon pages of people fuming.
Yet barely a peep when it's Pakistan, a front line country on the "War on Terror".

It's good news i think, for the Taliban.
Check out what Amhed Rashid has to say:
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2007/11/06/pakistan.ART_ART_11-06-07_A9_N78CNM8.html?sid=101

djpbarry

RedPlanet wrote: »

It's good news i think, for the Taliban.
Check out what Amhed Rashid has to say:
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2007/11/06/pakistan.ART_ART_11-06-07_A9_N78CNM8.html?sid=101

A slightly less biased article from a friend of mine in Lahore:

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C11%5C03%5Cstory_3-11-2007_pg3_2

RedPlanet

djpbarry wrote: »

A slightly less biased article from a friend of mine in Lahore:

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C11%5C03%5Cstory_3-11-2007_pg3_2

If that's the best pro-Musharraf editorial out there, then they really are grasping at straws.

Mr.Micro

[QUOTE=djpbarry;5 Musharraf have little in common!

Not a very strong possibility. It’s unlikely at this point that Pakistan will become an Islamic fundamentalist state – there is not nearly enough support for such a move.[/QUOTE]

Pakistan has apparently received $7billion dollars in aid over the last few years .Thats common ground I think to be friends with Bush.

When I say fragmented I do not mean fundamental .There is such opposing forces in Pakistan evident by the current turmoil that it might not take a lot to start a civil war or along period of instability and volatility.

djpbarry

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Pakistan has apparently received $7billion dollars in aid over the last few years .Thats common ground I think to be friends with Bush.

But that is not what you said. You said they were "like-minded". By your logic, Fianna Fáil and the PNA are "like-minded" because Ireland has supplied Palestine with millions of euro in aid.

Mr.Micro wrote: »

There is such opposing forces in Pakistan evident by the current turmoil that it might not take a lot to start a civil war or along period of instability and volatility.

Well, that is a possibility. Hopefully any serious conflict will be avoided if Musharraf stands by his pledge to quit the military and elections are held in January.

RedPlanet

djpbarry wrote: »

A slightly less biased article from a friend of mine in Lahore:

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C11%5C03%5Cstory_3-11-2007_pg3_2

BTW, my source: Ahmed Rashid:

a Pakistani journalist and best-selling author. Rashid attended Malvern College, England, Government College Lahore, and Cambridge University. He serves as the Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia correspondent for the Far Eastern Economic Review and the Daily Telegraph. He also writes for the Wall Street Journal, The Nation, and academic journals. He appears regularly on international TV and radio networks such as CNN and BBC World.

Rashid's 2000 book, Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia, was a New York Times bestseller for five weeks, translated into 22 languages, and has sold 1.5 million copies since the September 11, 2001 attacks.[1] The book was used extensively by American analysts in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

His commentary also appears in the Washington Post's PostGlobal segment.

from Wikipedia.

djpbarry's source?

Abbas Rashid is a freelance journalist and political analyst whose career has included editorial positions in various Pakistani newspapers

-taken from the bottom of the article he linked.

Enough said!

Sand

Hmm, i'm wondering where o where are those posters whom are supposedly perturbed over the concept of an independent judiciary (i'm referring specifically to the Chavez thread).
Why aren't they here posting their horror and disgust at events?
Imagine if it were Chavez striking out the Constitution and arresting lawyers; we'd see pages upon pages of people fuming.

Actually, I was waiting for pro-Chavez posters to complain of their outrage over events in Pakistan. Hey, maybe Pakistan is embarked on a brave social revolution? If that was the case, then surely all criticism about liberal democratic nicities is meaningless. Right?

Chavez is well ahead of Pakistan - the Consitution is already rewritten to his liking, even if he doesnt like it he can effectively rule by decree whenever he wishes, and hes packed the courts with his lawyers so why on earth would he arrest them? Theyre his courts now.

Gen Musharraf could trade notes with Chavez. The General passing on the tips and tricks on how to hold a successful military revolution, and Chavez advising the general on how to eliminiate any check on power once you have it.

RedPlanet

You couldn't be more wrong Sands.
Chavez holds elections after elections and wins everytime by sweeping majorities.
His rule cannot be criticized for lacking democratic credentials.
Musharraf on the other hand hasn't stood 1 single election, and appears to be afraid to hold even one.
He has absolutely no democratic credentials and took power via military coup.
But never you mind all that.
Chavez comes from the political Left. And that is enough to hang anybody in neo-con circles.

So where is Americas' spreading "democracy" to the world now huh?
Anybody think they're going to go to war against Pakistan?
Heck they already have forces in neighboring Afghanistan.

Sand

Chavez comes from the political Left. And that is enough to hang anybody in neo-con circles.

And enough to exonerate him in leftist circles.

smirkingmaurice

Chomsky predicted this upheaval in pakistan in a letter he wrote 2 years ago, forget what it was called "heres fuel to the fire" or something, he said that at that time pakistani kids could legally possess a gun at the age of nine, scaaaaryy!!

djpbarry

RedPlanet wrote: »

djpbarry's source?

-taken from the bottom of the article he linked.

Enough said!

So? I wasn’t questioning Rashid’s integrity.

smirkingmaurice wrote: »

he said that at that time pakistani kids could legally possess a gun at the age of nine, scaaaaryy!!

Absolute nonsense. Owning firearms is illegal in Pakistan. Only on rare occasions can a firearm be privately owned. Only tribal areas outside the reach of federal laws are able to bypass this restriction.

smirkingmaurice

djpbarry wrote: »

So? I wasn’t questioning Rashid’s integrity.

Absolute nonsense. Owning firearms is illegal in Pakistan. Only on rare occasions can a firearm be privately owned. Only tribal areas outside the reach of federal laws are able to bypass this restriction.

Ahh,perhaps you don't read chomsky very much and don't happen to have a friend who is living there. I suppose you are a holocaust denier as well

sovtek

Sand wrote: »

And enough to exonerate him in leftist circles.

For example?

sovtek

smirkingmaurice wrote: »

I suppose you are a holocaust denier as well

How did you logically get to that?