Et Tu, New York Times? Where Were They When Musharraf Sacked the Judges?

[seemslikeadream]

http://www.counterpunch.com/tariq02012008.html

By TARIQ ALI



"And when a leading Pakistani journalist at a London news conference asked a reasonable question about the security services, Mr. Musharraf implied that he was an enemy of the state. Such intimidation is especially chilling coming from a leader whose chief political rival, Benazir Bhutto, was recently assassinated. In a nation with democratic aspirations, journalists have every right to question leaders. He still doesn't seem to get that."

Editorial in New York Times, February 1, 2008

You have to hand it to the New York Times. With so much to write about they can still find time to kick General Musharraf where it doesn't really hurt. It's not that the sentiments expressed in the editorial are wrong. Obviously journalists should and must question their leaders without being denounced as traitors. Equally obviously elections shouldn't be rigged. Thinking a thought unacceptable to the state should never be a furtive occupation.

What a pity that the paper of record did not lead a chorus of disapproval when Musharraf sacked all the independent-minded judges of the Supreme and High Courts in the country, or when lawyers were being bludgeoned into submission by the cops on the streets of every major Pakistani city. Neither the leaders of the US/EU combine or their media were too upset by that development. Ther judges, it was whispered, had become too proactive and were ordering the release of disappeared 'terrorists' who had been imprisoned without trial after ascertaining that there was no proof to detain them. This challenged the fundamentals of Guantanamo and the violation of civil liberties, the suspension of habeas corpus in Britain. Just like the Queen Bee and her drones, the politicians ordained and the global media networks and tame journos followed suit,

But values have been shifted around for this was certainly not the case in Pakistan where the prevailing feeling was that something was seriously wrong. Both the print media and the non-State TV channels carried reports after serious investigations and screened daily coverage of the campaign to defend the Judges. In other words they supplied citizens with information that can only enhance democratic accountability. It was for this reason that Musharraf imposed a temporary State of Emergency. He sacked the Judges and imposed new curbs on the media. He wanted Pakistani journalists to be more like their Western counterparts.

[Buzz Clik]

1. Well, there was this:

Musharraf’s Martial Plan

By BENAZIR BHUTTO

November 7, 2007

Islamabad, Pakistan

NOV. 3, 2007, will be remembered as the blackest day in the history of Pakistan. Let us be perfectly clear: Pakistan is a military dictatorship. Last Saturday, Gen. Pervez Musharraf removed all pretense of a transition to democracy by conducting what was in effect yet another extraconstitutional coup.

In doing so he endangered the viability of Pakistan as an independent state. He presented the country’s democratic forces with a tough decision — acquiesce to the brutality of the dictatorship or take over the streets and show the world where the people of Pakistan really stand.

General Musharraf also presented the democratic world — and especially the countries of the West — with a question. Will they back up their democratic rhetoric with concrete action, or will they once again back down in the face of his bluff?

--more--

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/opinion/07bhutto.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

and this:

EDITORIAL; Gen. Musharraf's Cynical Win
October 9, 2007
Gen. Pervez Musharraf's ''election'' last weekend as Pakistan's president was a perversion of democracy.

The vote was not really a vote since, knowing how badly the deck was stacked, the opposition parties refused to participate. The results must now be certified by the Supreme Court, which must decide whether General Musharraf was even eligible to run while still in uniform. We hope the court will rule fairly and independently -- and that General Musharraf's enablers in Washington will make clear that he must respect that decision and finally start moving his country toward the rule of law.

Returning Pakistan to civilian government has been a declared goal of the United States since General Musharraf seized power in 1999. Time and again he has promised that he would resign his post as chief of army staff and take off the uniform, but even now he is playing cute about when -- and whether -- that might happen.

He has used his power vindictively and squandered his popular support by forcing rivals into exile and by harassing and intimidating journalists, judges and anyone who has tried to stand up to him. When confronted with mass protests this summer, General Musharraf threatened to go even further and suspend the Parliament and impose martial law. It took a 2 a.m. phone call from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to get him to back down.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D03E6DD1F3CF93AA35753C1A9619C8B63&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

and this:

EDITORIAL; Gathering Storm

November 8, 2007

What does it say when a leader tells his people he must suspend their civil rights in order to combat extremism, then locks up judges, lawyers and human rights activists -- society's most moderate forces -- while Osama bin Laden and the Taliban run free? And what are those oppressed people supposed to conclude when the reaction of the world and even some of their own leaders is grudging?

That's been the twisted reality unfolding in Pakistan as its military dictator, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, propels his nation toward greater instability. Fortunately, there were signs yesterday of forces mobilizing against the general and his decree of martial law.

Pakistani lawyers, who fueled serious political opposition to General Musharraf when he first suspended Supreme Court Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry last March, have courageously taken the lead in protests since the imposition of martial law on Saturday. An incongruous sight in their business suits during street fights with police, they have spoken eloquently of how the general's suspension of the Constitution and abolition of the court grievously undermines the modern, reform-minded country Pakistan was meant to become.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9400E1D8163DF93BA35752C1A9619C8B63&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Probably more....