Democracy Promotion

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War on Terror
Posted on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 02:05:17 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Freedom loving:

Police fired tear gas and clubbed thousands of lawyers protesting President Gen. Pervez Musharraf's decision to impose emergency rule, as Western allies threatened to review aid to the troubled Muslim nation. Opposition groups put the number of arrests at 3,500, although the government reported half that.
Musharraf, who took power in a 1999 coup and is also head of Pakistan's army, suspended the constitution on Saturday ahead of a Supreme Court ruling on whether his recent re-election as president was legal. He ousted independent-minded judges, put a stranglehold on independent media and granted sweeping powers to authorities to crush dissent.

. . . Musharraf said Monday he would relinquish control of the military and return the country to "the same track as we were moving" but he gave no indication when the vote would take place.
"I am determined to remove my uniform once we correct these pillars — the judiciary, the executive, and the parliament," Musharraf was quoted by state-run Pakistan Television as telling foreign ambassadors Monday. . . .

They hate us for our freedoms. See also Devil's Tower's great post.

< Atrios Is Wrong: What Democrats Need To Do | On Iraq Funding: A Moment For Obama To Lead >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Democracy Promotion | 12 comments (12 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

again, (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by cpinva on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 02:39:53 PM EST

a military dictator, by any other name, is still a military dictator. this is how we managed to piss off so many people around the world to begin with, since the end of wwII, supporting some scumbag, because he's our scumbag.

: Yes, but... (1.00 / 0) (#6)
by Edger on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 03:23:36 PM EST

without supporting brutal and oppressive dictators who create them, where would all the "terrorists" come from that are needed to justify the WOT fantasies that the peasants here swallow so readily?

Are you a clear-thinking, sensible citizen with a good command of history and world events? Do you generally get along with people, even if your interests are opposed? Do you have good leadership skills, and acknowledge that up is up and left is, in fact, left? If so, today's U.S diplomatic corps may NOT be for you. But if you possess the essential skills of metaphorical bridge burning, selective rationality, arrogant provincialism, and regurgitating laughably nonsensical talking points ad nauseum, then you're a perfect candidate for a career at the US State Department!

Shame on anyone who buys Musharraf's (none / 0) (#1)
by Geekesque on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 02:32:01 PM EST

"the Islamist bogeyman made me do it" crap.

Nukes (none / 0) (#3)
by squeaky on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 02:47:28 PM EST

As for Pakistan, Obama said that if President Pervez Musharraf were to lose power in a coup, the United States similarly might have to consider military action in that country to destroy nuclear weapons it already possesses. Musharraf's troops are battling hundreds of well-armed foreign militants and Pakistani tribesmen in increasingly violent confrontations.
[snip]
"... I think there are elements within Pakistan right now--if Musharraf is overthrown and they took over, I think we would have to consider going in and taking those bombs out, because I don't think we can make the same assumptions about how they calculate risks."

Um, no coup has been launched by anyone (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Geekesque on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 02:50:02 PM EST

besides Musharraf.


: I Know (none / 0) (#5)
by squeaky on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 03:12:52 PM EST

But his reasons for a re-coup are that if he didn't do it the terrorists would win. He was not allowed to run in January unless he gave up his generalship, and if he gave up his control of the army the terrorists would get the nukes.
Anyway just poking a bit of fun, cause it is near impossible for any candidate to escape "the Islamist bogeyman made me do it" crap.
especially when they are addressing AIPAC.

Supporting Dictators (none / 0) (#7)
by squeaky on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 03:36:42 PM EST

The international community has only belatedly realized that Pakistan is a haven for terrorism, nuclear proliferation and Islamic radicalism. Afghanistan's stability and the fate of 40,000 U.S. and NATO soldiers depend on what happens in Pakistan. The spread of anti-Western feelings and the rise of Islamic fundamentalism have been fostered by a U.S. policy that has sought to prop up Musharraf rather than forcing him to seek political consensus and empower a representative civilian government that would have public support for attacking the extremists.

WaPo

Many if not most of my Pakistani interlocutors do not believe that the Pakistani military is using either martial law or U.S. assistance for "counter-terrorism." They believe it is using it to perpetuate its own power in the service of a national security project that serves neither Pakistan nor Afghanistan and is doing great harm to both.

Barnett Rubin

Lawyers (none / 0) (#8)
by Ladyjustice on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 08:05:03 AM EST

Since the poor and disadvantaged are not represented anywhere, let alone in WA, I have long been an advocate of intellectuals, lawyers, and others in a position to make a difference, to stand up to Bush and this administration as a strong, united voice for the poor and against this administration. As a strong, united voice I would think they could be powerful enough to influence those who would or could impeach Bush/Cheney and begin to change the course this administration has taken against our constitution and our freedoms. But is this also what a Bush/Cheney administration would do? Attack the lawyers? Who would stop him? So far this Congress has done nothing except aid and abet criminal activity, and the lawyers and intellectuals who are in powerful positions to effect a change, sit and watch. Will we witness book burning next and still sit and watch? How about more censorship? Sit and Watch?

He's Chavez (none / 0) (#9)
by Wile ECoyote on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 08:46:44 AM EST

of Southeast asia. No pass for him though, he is not vowing to be a socialist!

Iran ain't looking like much of a threat... (none / 0) (#10)
by kdog on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 09:25:15 AM EST

anymore are they?

did all of that 10 billion (none / 0) (#11)
by Jlvngstn on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 09:52:04 AM EST

go to the armed services of pakistan or does musharraf have a nice nest egg for hisself?

In 2 years 60 Minutes will tell us about the lavish lifestyle he led and how the US never noticed a darn thing.

Haven't we heard this storyline before, on at least a dozen occasions?

US gives money and support to leader, leader ciphons money, leader becomes dictator or evil. Reminds me a bit of Pinchot, Hussein, Shah, Noriega, Bin Laden....need we say more???

: We'll never learn J..... (none / 0) (#12)
by kdog on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 10:12:44 AM EST

isolationism sounds better and better everyday.