Desperate' Musharraf declares martial law

Declan Walsh in Islamabad
Sunday November 4, 2007
The Observer

Pakistan's president Pervez Musharraf imposed emergency rule last night, plunging the nuclear power into crisis and triggering condemnation from leaders around the world.
The action to reassert his flagging authority was, he said, a response to Islamic militancy and to the 'paralysis of government by judicial interference'. He said that his country's sovereignty was at stake.

Judges and lawyers were arrested, troops poured on to city streets and television and radio stations were taken off the air. Musharraf also suspended the constitution and fired the chief justice, Muhammad Iftikhar Chaudhry, who spearheaded a powerful mass movement against him earlier this year.

Last night police arrested opposition politicians and senior lawyers including the chief justice's lawyer, Aitzaz Ahsan, and Imran Khan. 'Musharraf is acting like a spoiled child, holding the whole country hostage. These are the last days of Pervez Musharraf,' said Ahsan as he was escorted from his home into a police van. Ahsan, who leads the Supreme Court Bar Association, said that lawyers would launch a series of nationwide protests tomorrow.
Soldiers entered the Supreme Court in the late afternoon where Chaudhry and six other judges said Musharraf's declaration that he would rule under a provisional constitutional order was illegal. Chaudhry was reportedly under house arrest last night.

Police sealed off the main street in central Islamabad and soldiers entered the state television and radio buildings. Private news networks went off the air and mobile phone coverage was intermittent. Shots were heard in several neighbourhoods of Karachi, where there is strong support for former Prime Minister and opposition leader Benazir Bhutto, who had gone to Dubai on Thursday on a personal visit. She arrived back in Pakistan to a rapturous welcome last night and immediately decried Musharraf's move as tantamount to dictatorship.

'Unless General Musharraf reverses the course, it will be very difficult to have fair elections,' she said.

The United States, which sees Musharraf as a crucial ally against al-Qaeda, had urged him to avoid taking authoritarian measures and called the move 'very disappointing'.

Late last night Musharraf addressed the nation on state television. He said he decided to impose a state of emergency in response to a rise in extremism and to interference from the courts and judges in the business of government. Pakistan's internal security has deteriorated in recent months with a wave of suicide attacks by al-Qaeda-inspired militants, including one that killed 139 people.

There had been increasing speculation that Musharraf, who seized power in a 1999 coup, might declare an emergency rather than run the risk the Supreme Court would rule against his re-election as president. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said she was 'deeply dismayed' by the move and Whitehall expressed 'grave concern'.

In a statement last night, the Pentagon said the emergency declaration by Musharraf did not impact the US military support of Pakistan or its efforts in the war on terror. Spokesman Geoff Morrell said: 'Pakistan is a very important ally in the war on terror and he [US Defence Secretary Robert Gates] is monitoring the situation there.'

Britons of Pakistani origin were also urged to use their contacts to press home the message by the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband. 'All friends of Pakistan will be concerned by the turn of events today,' he said. 'We recognise the threat to peace and security faced by the country, but its future rests on harnessing the power of democracy and the rule of law.'

Musharraf had promised to resign as army chief by 15 November, with general elections due by mid-January. Those elections are now in doubt, as is a power-sharing deal with Bhutto. 'She is waiting to see if she is going to be arrested or deported,' Wajid Hasan, her spokesman, said.

Musharraf has faced numerous crises over the past year, including protests, court challenges and spiralling Islamist violence. Last week troops mounted a major assault on an Islamist cleric who has declared his own Islamic mini-state in Swat, a previously peaceful area popular with tourists.

But the greatest threat to Musharraf's power was the Supreme Court, which was due to rule in the coming weeks on the legality of his controversial 8 October re-election as president. As the result of an opposition boycott, he received 98 per cent of the votes. The legal challenge has now been quashed, but emergency rule raises a range of new problems including the possibility of widespread public protest and a further breakdown of Pakistan's battered state institutions.

Hardliners in Musharraf's political party, PML-Q have been urging him to impose emergency rule for months. But others have opposed yesterday's move. One senior PML-Q official, who declined to be named, told The Observer that the move was a disaster and predicted it would eventually spell 'the end for Musharraf'.

Human Rights Watch condemned yesterday's move as 'a brazen attempt at muzzling the judiciary'.

_______

Pay attention folks...with all the presidential orders in place Bush could do this without
hesitation.....

Pay attention folks...with all the presidential orders in place Bush could do this without
hesitation.....


EXPLAIN?

No, no.....

it should say.....

Pay attention folks...with all the presidential orders in place Bush WOULD do this without
hesitation.....

I wouldn't put ANYTHING past that gang of thugs.

1) we're engaged in a global war...some call it the infancy of WW111.

2) the Patriot Act has very slippery language

I'm with you knoxman. I do not trust this bunch of idiots. Self serving and murderous, in my opinion.
Kat

presuming every law enforcement agency and officer in the country would enforce this and all military active duty and reserve would enforce this I don't it see happening if Bush or ANY president did something like this I can see Washington DC getting riddled with 100 billion bullets.

In that case ya all better talk nice about Bush cuz when he does it, ya all are in a heap of trouble if ya don't

Remember today starts a new week time to change the foil in your hats

What do you think UN Troops are for? They can be put into place and being foreigners, wouldn't think twice about mowing down an American.

they are effective in some countries but this country has 100 million gun owners in it, not 100 million guns, but gun owners! that is why we've not been invaded. and the UN would be an invasion I don't see it plus we would still have our military here. screw UN forces!

and let us not forget that the US provides the UN with the muscle!they get help here and there but it's the good ol' USA the thats the backbone!

Then, how would Bush be able to put into force Martial Law and anyone take it seriously?

The point is:

..that Junior will do anything he can get away with to further his neo-con agenda.

Spur U.N. troops are neuteral, not allowed fire on anyone, they are only there to try keep the peace. Green line in Cyprus or like my brother was in Lebannon. We pleaded for many years to no avail to have them in our country, might have made things a lot more peaceful.

boredinaz06: may I suggest looking at following link. The US forces are far from being the backbone of UN Peacekeeping forces. Even Sri Lanka has more troops contributed than the U.S.


http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/contributors/2007/sept07_1.pdf

Canada has fifty years of experience in peacekeeping and has participated in most of the missions mandated by the UN security council. This ability to count on Canada to help has established an international reputation. The term peacekeeping did not enter popular use until 1965. Since that time there have been over fifty UN peacekeeping missions. Canada has participated in more missions than any other country.

I feel there is another term for the United States of America's politics, and military, within the world's unrest in these modern times...(meaning now)...'Uninvited States of America's politics and military.'

Peacekeeping Forces....isn't that an oxymoron?

Keep the peace by force?

Hi Jess,

Sometimes the threat of force can be an effective peacekeeping mechanism. i.e., The U.S. and U.S.S.R. both having enough nukes to totally annihalate each other. In my mind that is why the U.S. and U.S.S.R. never went to war.

You folks are smoking some Goon Ganga today

Uninvited by those whose political interests are counter to our own. That's a natural. What is more difficult is sorting out those political interests and recognizing them.

As for Pakistan, since this was the topic, I think the United States might better show some tolerance for the current state of affairs. Musharraf is going to need the support, and denying it would be a difficult kettle of fish.

Has anybody thought that a benevolent dictatorship might be more easily tolerated than an anarchy of extremists? Think Reza Shah Pahlavi here.

Peacekeeping force is by no means an oxymoron. Think of the times a teacher stands between a bully and a geek. I won't go into how simple a concept this is.

pakistan is politically causght between a rock n a hard place on one end: islamic terrorists, on the other: western imperialism. its a shame theyre opting to use fascism