STATE OF EMERGENCY Pakistan's Paresses Musharraf Suspends Constitution G Bush Jealous

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Cheney is worried about Iran getting the A bomb. Pakistan is a country that has terrorists, fundemental radical muslims, a military dictaor and the A bomb. Talk about priorties.

source: msnbc.msn.com

Rice urges return to democracy in Pakistan
Administration reacts to Musharraf's declaration of emergency

updated 9:33 p.m. ET, Sat., Nov. 3, 2007

ISTANBUL, Turkey - The Bush administration said Saturday it was deeply disturbed by the state of emergency in Pakistan and urged a swift return to a democratic and civilian government. The Pentagon said Gen. Pervez Musharraf’s declaration does not affect U.S. military support of Pakistan, however.

The stakes are high and Defense Secretary Robert Gates is monitoring the fast-developing situation, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said.

“Pakistan is a very important ally in the war on terror and he is closely following the developments there,” Morrell told reporters aboard Gates’ plane as he traveled to China.

The emergency declaration “does not impact our military support of Pakistan” or its efforts in the war on terror, Morrell said of the country that’s a key U.S. partner in the fight against al-Qaida militants.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is taking the U.S. lead in dealing with the situation, Morrell said, and Gates had not spoken to Musharraf and had no plans to during his 17-hour flight to Beijing.

Rice said that, to her knowledge, Bush administration officials had yet to hear from Musharraf since his declaration Saturday, although U.S. leaders had privately and publicly urged him against such a move.

“The U.S. has made clear it does not support extraconstitutional measures because those measures take Pakistan away from the path of democracy and civilian rule,” Rice said after attending an Iraq neighbors conference in Istanbul. “Whatever happens we will be urging a quick return to civilian rule.”

Adm. William J. Fallon, head of U.S. Central Command, met with Musharraf and other top generals on Friday to discuss the security situation in northwest Pakistan. But Fallon did not threaten to cut off U.S. military aid to the Pakistani government, Morrell said. And he said he has “no sense at this point that there is an imminent review” planned to look at whether aid should be affected.

In Washington, a White House spokesman said, “All parties involved should move along the democratic path peacefully and quickly.” Britain’s foreign secretary said Pakistan’s future “rests on harnessing the power of democracy and the rule of law to achieve the goals of stability, development and countering terrorism.”

Musharraf suspended the constitution ahead of a Supreme Court ruling on his future as president. He also replaced the chief justice. His government blocked transmissions of private news channels in several Pakistani cities. Telephone services in the capital were cut.

The U.S.-backed Army chief had come close in August to declaring a state of emergency, but decided against it after strong opposition from inside and outside his government, including a late-night phone call from Rice in Washington.

Rice said she last spoke with Musharraf a couple of days ago but other U.S. officials had made the U.S. position clear to him more recently.

She would not detail the conversations. She did say the U.S. told Pakistani leaders that “even if something happens, that we would expect the democratic election to take place because Pakistan has got to return to a constitutional order as soon as possible, and Pakistanis have to have a prospect of free and fair elections.”

It was not clear whether U.S. officials had advance knowledge of Saturday’s action.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the U.S. was “deeply disturbed” by the developments.

“A state of emergency would be a sharp setback for Pakistani democracy and takes Pakistan off the path toward civilian rule,” McCormack said in a statement.

Musharraf, who took power in a 1999 coup, claimed a sweeping victory in voting Oct. 6. He has pledged to quit the army before starting a new five-year term, but declined on election night to say whether he would accept a negative verdict from the court.

“President Musharraf has stated repeatedly that he will step down as chief of army staff before retaking the presidential oath of office and has promised to hold elections by January 15th,” McCormack said, referring to parliamentary voting. “We expect him to uphold these commitments and urge him to do so immediately.”

White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said Musharraf’s move was “very disappointing.”

“President Musharraf needs to stand by his pledges to have free and fair elections in January” and step down as army chief before taking the oath of office as president, Johndroe said.

The strong-armed maneuvers by Musharraf appeared to be a clear blow to the Bush administration. It aggressively has tried to stem any move toward authoritarianism in Pakistan.

McCormack offered words of support for pro-democracy efforts in Pakistan.

“The United States stands with the people of Pakistan in supporting a democratic process and in countering violent extremism,” McCormack said. “We urge all parties to work together to complete the transition to democracy and civilian rule without violence or delay.”

President Bush long has counted on Musharraf as a terrorism-fighting partner. The Pakistani leader aligned himself with the United States following the Sept. 11 attacks and helped U.S. and coalition forces battle al-Qaida, which had used Pakistan as a safe haven.

In recent months, however, Bush and members of his Cabinet have urged Musharraf to allow free presidential elections instead of fighting to retain power.
 

African Herbsman

Star
Registered
Re: STATE OF EMERGENCY Pakistan's Paresses Musharraf Suspends Constitution G Bush Jea

The pot calling the kettle black. After the government nukes an american city GWB will do the same thing.
 

LennyNero1972

Sleeping Deity.
BGOL Investor
Re: STATE OF EMERGENCY Pakistan's Paresses Musharraf Suspends Constitution G Bush Jea

The pot calling the kettle black. After the government nukes an american city GWB will do the same thing.

Yep. At first I thought they wouldn't be bold enough to pull a stunt like that(too many eyes watching). Now after reading this I can't put it past them. Don't be surprised if the 2008 elections don't happen.
 

GET YOU HOT

Superfly Moderator
BGOL Investor
Re: STATE OF EMERGENCY Pakistan's Paresses Musharraf Suspends Constitution G Bush Jea

^^^EXACTLY, DON'T BE SUPRISED...:angry:


Musharraf suspended the constitution ahead of a Supreme Court ruling on his future as president. He also replaced the chief justice. His government blocked transmissions of private news channels in several Pakistani cities. Telephone services in the capital were cut.
 
Last edited:

Fuckallyall

Support BGOL
Registered
Re: STATE OF EMERGENCY Pakistan's Paresses Musharraf Suspends Constitution G Bush Jea

Now what will any of you have to say when the peaceful transition of power occurs on Jan 20, 2008 ?
That's the problem with Doomsayers. You're never held accountable when you're wrong.
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Re: STATE OF EMERGENCY Pakistan's Paresses Musharraf Suspends Constitution G Bush Jea

Now what will any of you have to say when the peaceful transition of power occurs on Jan 20, 2008 ?
That's the problem with Doomsayers. You're never held accountable when you're wrong.

Weapons od mass detruction, Terri Schiavo, Mission Accompished?
 

Fuckallyall

Support BGOL
Registered
Re: STATE OF EMERGENCY Pakistan's Paresses Musharraf Suspends Constitution G Bush Jea

Herbsman, good catch. But no answer. Will any of you recant for all sorts of doom you've predicted, but thankfully hasn't happened ?
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: STATE OF EMERGENCY Pakistan's Paresses Musharraf Suspends Constitution G Bush Jea

Now what will any of you have to say when the peaceful transition of power occurs on Jan 20, 2008 ?
That's the problem with Doomsayers. You're never held accountable when you're wrong.
Thank you for that!

QueEx
 

John_Gault

Support BGOL
Registered
Re: STATE OF EMERGENCY Pakistan's Paresses Musharraf Suspends Constitution G Bush Jea

Just a thought . . . What makes you cats think that 'Regime Change' wasn't on order for ALL middle eastern nations . . esp. the ones WITH nuke capacity.

Watch the hidden hand, Watch the hidden hand, Watch the hidden hand, Watch the hidden hand.


JG
 

Fuckallyall

Support BGOL
Registered
Re: STATE OF EMERGENCY Pakistan's Paresses Musharraf Suspends Constitution G Bush Jea

Just a thought . . . What makes you cats think that 'Regime Change' wasn't on order for ALL middle eastern nations . . esp. the ones WITH nuke capacity.

Watch the hidden hand, Watch the hidden hand, Watch the hidden hand, Watch the hidden hand.


JG

What hidden hand ? And if it's hidden, how do you watch it ?
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: STATE OF EMERGENCY Pakistan's Paresses Musharraf Suspends Constitution G Bush Jea

lol.
 

African Herbsman

Star
Registered
Re: STATE OF EMERGENCY Pakistan's Paresses Musharraf Suspends Constitution G Bush Jea

White House Tells Musharraf: Never ‘Restrict Constitutional Freedoms’ To Fight Terrorism


During today’s White House press briefing, spokeswoman Dana Perino condemned Gen. Pervez Musharraf’s declaration of “emergency rule” in Pakistan. She said that the administration is “deeply disappointed” by the measure, which suspends the country’s constitution, and believes it is never “reasonable” to “restrict constitutional freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism”:

Q: Is it ever reasonable to restrict constitutional freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism?

MS. PERINO: In our opinion, no.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/05/musharraf-freedom/
 

GET YOU HOT

Superfly Moderator
BGOL Investor
Re: STATE OF EMERGENCY Pakistan's Paresses Musharraf Suspends Constitution G Bush Jea

Musharaff, is done, they are about to cut him off, creating a power struggle, into an all out civil war...

Many say Musharraf was making a final effort to cling to power when he imposed emergency measures, though he says his primary aim was to help fight a growing Taliban and al-Qaida-linked militant threat. In the northwest, near the Afghan border, extremists seized the town of Matta from outnumbered security forces who surrendered without a fight.

"We didn't harm the police and soldiers and allowed them to go to their homes as they didn't fight our mujahedeen," said Sirajuddin, a spokesman for Maulana Fazlullah, a firebrand cleric whose armed followers are battling security forces.

Musharraf's decision to scrap the country's constitution came ahead of a Supreme Court ruling on the legality of his recent re-election as president. Critics said he should have been disqualified because he contested the vote as army chief. The top judge, Chaudhry, and other justices were removed and replaced.

Though anger is mounting, there does not appear to be a groundswell of popular resistance in the nation of 160 million, which has been under military rule for much of its 60-year history. With many people apathetic about politics, rallies so far have been limited largely to opposition activists, rights workers and lawyers angered by the attacks on the judiciary.

But many of Pakistan's closest allies in the West have expressed concern.

So far, only the Netherlands has punished Pakistan, freezing most of its development aid.

The United States said it was reviewing aid to the Muslim nation, but it appeared unlikely to cut military assistance to its close ally in the so-called war on terror. U.S. aid to Pakistan has totaled more than $10 billion since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in America.


http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PAKISTAN?SITE=ORBEN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
 

GET YOU HOT

Superfly Moderator
BGOL Investor
Re: STATE OF EMERGENCY Pakistan's Paresses Musharraf Suspends Constitution G Bush Jea

Interview w/Former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto & thoughts on Musharaff's State of Emergency,discussion...

[QT]http://www-tc.pbs.org/newshour/rss/media/2007/11/05/20071105_pakistan28.mp3[/QT]
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: STATE OF EMERGENCY Pakistan's Paresses Musharraf Suspends Constitution G Bush Jea

Pakistan and its Army​

Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
Geopolitical Intelligence Report
By George Friedman
November 6, 2007

Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf declared a state of emergency over the weekend, precipitating a wave of arrests, the suspension of certain media operations and the intermittent disruption of communications in and out of Pakistan. As expected, protests erupted throughout Pakistan by Nov. 5, with clashes between protesting lawyers and police reported in Lahore, Karachi, Islamabad and several other cities. Thus far, however, the army appears to be responding to Musharraf's commands.


The Issue as Musharraf Sees It
The primary issue, as Musharraf framed it, was the Pakistani Supreme Court's decision to release about 60 people the state had charged with terrorism. Musharraf's argument was that the court's action makes the fight against Islamist extremism impossible and that the judiciary overstepped its bounds by urging that the civil rights of the accused be protected.

Musharraf's critics, including the opposition's top leader, former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, argued that Musharraf was using the Supreme Court issue to protect his own position in the government, avoid leaving the army as promised and put off elections. In short, he is being accused of staging a personal coup under the guise of a state of emergency.


A Country Born With Divisions
Whether Musharraf himself survives is not a historically significant issue. What is significant is whether Pakistan will fall into internal chaos or civil war, or fragment into smaller states. We must consider what that would mean, but first we must examine Pakistan's underlying dilemma -- a set of contradictions rooted in Pakistani history.

When the British conquered the Indian subcontinent, they essentially occupied the lowlands and pushed their frontier into the mountains surrounding the subcontinent -- the point from which a relatively small British force, augmented by local recruits, could hold against any external threat. The eastern line ran through the hills that separated Bengal from Burma. The northern line ran through the Himalayas that separate China from the subcontinent. The western line ran along the mountains that separated British India from Afghanistan and Iran.

This lineation -- which represented not a political settlement but rather a defensive position selected for military reasons -- remained vague, driven by shifting tactical decisions designed to secure a physical entity, the subcontinent. The Britons were fairly indifferent to the political realities inside the line. The British Raj, then, was a wild jumble of states, languages, religions and ethnic groups, which the Britons were quite content to play against one another as part of their grand strategy in India. As long as the British could impose an artificial, internal order, the general concept of India worked. But as the British Empire collapsed after World War II, the region had to find its own balance.

Mahatma Gandhi envisioned post-British India as being a multinational, multireligious country within the borders that then existed -- meaning that India's Muslims would live inside a predominantly Hindu country. When they objected, the result was both a partition of the country and a transfer of populations. The Muslim part of India, including the eastern Muslim region, became modern Pakistan. The eastern region gained independence as Bangladesh following a 1971 war between India and Pakistan.

Pakistan, however, was not a historic name for the region. Rather, reflective of the deeply divided Muslims themselves, the name is an acronym that derives, in part, from the five ethnic groups that made up western, Muslim India: Punjabis, Afghans, Kashmiris, Sindhis and Balochis.

The Punjabis are the major ethnic group, making up just under half of the population, though none of these groups is entirely in Pakistan. Balochis also are in Iran, Pashtuns also in Afghanistan and Punjabis also in India. In fact, as a result of the war in Afghanistan more than a quarter century ago, massive numbers of Pashtuns have crossed into Pakistan from Afghanistan -- though many consider themselves to be moving within Pashtun territory rather than crossing a foreign border.

Geographically, it is important to think of Pakistan in two parts. There is the Indus River Valley, where the bulk of the population lives, and then there are the mountainous regions, whose ethnic groups are deeply divided, difficult for the central government to control and generally conservative, preferring tradition to modernization. The relative isolation and the difficult existence in mountainous regions seem to create this kind of culture around the world.

Pakistan, therefore, is a compendium of divisions. The British withdrawal created a state called Pakistan, but no nation by that name. What bound its residents together was the Muslim faith -- albeit one that had many forms. As in India -- indeed, as in the Muslim world at the time of Pakistan's founding -- there existed a strong secularist movement that focused on economic development and cultural modernization more than on traditional Islamic values. This secularist tendency had two roots: one in the British education of many of the Pakistani elite and the second in Turkish founder Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, who pioneered secularism in the Islamic world.

Pakistan, therefore, began as a state in crisis. What remained of British rule was a parliamentary democracy that might have worked in a relatively unified nation -- not one that was split along ethnic lines and also along the great divide of the 20th century: secular versus religious. Hence, the parliamentary system broke down early on -- about four years after Pakistan's creation in 1947. British-trained civilian bureaucrats ran the country with the help of the army until 1958, when the army booted out the bureaucrats and took over.


The Role of The Army - Guarantor of the State
Therefore, if Pakistan was a state trying to create a nation, then the primary instrument of the state was the army. This is not uniquely Pakistani by any means, nor is it unprincipled. The point that Ataturk made -- one that was championed in the Arab world by Egypt's Gamal Abdul Nasser and in Iran by Reza Pahlavi -- was that the creation of a modern state in a traditional and divided nation required a modern army as the facilitator. An army, in the modern sense, is by definition technocratic and disciplined. The army, rather than simply an instrument of the state, therefore, becomes the guarantor of the state. In this line of thinking, a military coup can preserve a constitution against anti-constitutional traditionalists. If the idea of a military coup as a guarantor of constitutional integrity seems difficult to fathom, then consider the complexities involved in creating a modern constitutional regime in a traditional society.

Although the British tradition of parliamentary government fell apart in Pakistan, one institution the Britons left behind grew stronger: the Pakistani army. The army -- along with India's army -- was forged by the British and modeled on their army. It was perhaps the most modern institution in both countries, and the best organized and effective instrument of the state. As long as the army remained united and loyal to the concept of Pakistan, the centrifugal forces could not tear the country apart.


Musharraf, The Amry and The State
Musharraf's behavior must be viewed in this context. Pakistan is a country that not only is deeply divided, but also has the real capacity to tear itself apart. It is losing control of the mountainous regions to the indigenous tribes. The army is the only institution that transcends all of these ethnic differences and has the potential to restore order in the mountain regions and maintain state control elsewhere.

Musharraf's coup in 1999, which followed a series of military intrusions, as well as attempts at secular democratic rule, was designed to preserve Pakistan as a united country. That is why Musharraf insisted on continuing to wear the uniform of an army general. To remove the uniform and rule simply as a civilian might make sense to an outsider, but inside of Pakistan that uniform represents the unity of the state and the army -- and in Musharraf's view, that unity is what holds the country together.

Of course the problem is that the army, in the long run, reflects the country. The army has significant pockets of radical Islamist beliefs, while Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), the military's intelligence branch, in particular is filled with Taliban sympathizers. (After all, the ISI was assigned to support the mujahideen fighting the Soviets in the 1980s, and the ISI and other parts of the army absorbed the ideology). Musharraf has had to walk a tightrope between U.S. demands that he crack down on his own army and his desire to preserve his regime -- and has never been able to satisfy either side fully.

It is not clear whether he has fallen off the tightrope. Whatever he does, as long as the army remains united and he controls the corps commanders, he will remain in power. Even if the corps commanders -- the real electors of Pakistan -- get tired of him and replace him with another military leader, Pakistan would remain in pretty much the same position it is in now.


Will They Survive?
In simple terms, the real question is this: Will the army split? Put more broadly, will some generals simply stop taking orders from Pakistan's General Headquarters and side with the Islamists? Will others side with Bhutto? Will ethnic disagreements run so deep that the Indus River Valley becomes the arena for a civil war? That is what instability in Pakistan would look like. It is not a question of civilian institutions, elections or any of the things we associate with civil society. The key question on Pakistan is whether the army stays united.

In our view, the senior commanders will remain united because they have far more to lose if they fracture. Their positions depend on a united army and a unified chain of command -- the one British legacy that continues to function in Pakistan.

There are two signs to look for: severe internal dissent among the senior generals or a series of mutinies by subordinate units. Either of these would raise serious questions as to the future of Pakistan. Whether Musharraf survives or falls and whether he is replaced by a civilian leader are actually secondary questions. In Pakistan, the fundamental issue is the unity of the army.

At some point, there will be a showdown among the various groups. That moment might be now, though we doubt it. As long as the generals are united and the troops remain under control, the existence of the regime is guaranteed -- and in some sense the army will remain the regime. Under these conditions, with or without Musharraf, with or without democracy, Pakistan will survive.

www.stratfor.com
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: STATE OF EMERGENCY Pakistan's Paresses Musharraf Suspends Constitution G Bush Jea

U.S. Is Looking Past Musharraf in Case He Falls​


New York Times
By HELENE COOPER, MARK MAZZETTI and DAVID ROHDE
Published: November 15, 2007

WASHINGTON, Nov. 14 — Almost two weeks into Pakistan’s political crisis, Bush administration officials are losing faith that the Pakistani president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, can survive in office and have begun discussing what might come next, according to senior administration officials.

In meetings on Wednesday, officials at the White House, State Department and the Pentagon huddled to decide what message Deputy Secretary of State John D. Negroponte would deliver to General Musharraf — and perhaps more important, to Pakistan’s generals — when he arrives in Islamabad on Friday.

Administration officials say they still hope that Mr. Negroponte can salvage the fractured arranged marriage between General Musharraf and former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. But in Pakistan, foreign diplomats and aides to both leaders said the chances of a deal between the leaders were evaporating 11 days after General Musharraf declared de facto martial law.

Several senior administration officials said that with each day that passed, more administration officials were coming around to the belief that General Musharraf’s days in power were numbered and that the United States should begin considering contingency plans, including reaching out to Pakistan’s generals.

More than a dozen officials in Washington and Islamabad from a number of countries spoke on condition of anonymity because of the fragility of Pakistan’s current political situation. The doubts that American officials voiced about whether General Musharraf could survive were more pointed than any public statements by the administration, and signaled declining American patience in advance of Mr. Negroponte’s trip.

Officials involved in the discussions in Washington said the Bush administration remained wary of the perception that the United States was cutting back-room deals to install the next leader of Pakistan. “They don’t want to encourage another military coup, but they are also beginning to understand that Musharraf has become part of the problem,” said one former official with knowledge of the debates inside the Bush administration.

That shift in perception is significant because for six years General Musharraf has sought to portray himself, for his own purposes, as the West’s best alternative to a possible takeover in Pakistan by radical Islamists.

While remote areas in northwestern Pakistan remain a haven for Al Qaeda and other Islamic militants, senior officials at the White House, the State Department and the Pentagon now say they recognize that the Pakistani Army remains a powerful force for stability in Pakistan, and that there is little prospect of an Islamic takeover if General Musharraf should fall.

If General Musharraf is forced from power, they say, it would most likely be in a gentle push by fellow officers, who would try to install a civilian president and push for parliamentary elections to produce the next prime minister, perhaps even Ms. Bhutto, despite past strains between her and the military.

Many Western diplomats in Islamabad said they believed that even a flawed arrangement like that one was ultimately better than an oppressive and unpopular military dictatorship under General Musharraf.

Such a scenario would be a return to the diffuse and sometimes unwieldy democracy that Pakistan had in the 1990s before General Musharraf seized power in a bloodless coup.

But the diplomats also warned that removing the general might not be that easy. Army generals are unlikely to move against General Musharraf unless certain “red lines” are crossed, such as countrywide political protests or a real threat of a cutoff of American military aid to Pakistan.

Since he invoked emergency powers on Nov. 3, General Musharraf has successfully used a huge security crackdown to block large-scale protests. Virtually all major opposition politicians have been detained, as well as 2,500 party workers, lawyers and human rights activists, and on Wednesday, a close aide to General Musharraf said the Pakistani leader remained convinced that emergency rule should continue.

Pakistan’s cadre of elite generals, called the corps commanders, have long been kingmakers inside the country. At the top of that cadre is Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, General Musharraf’s designated successor as army chief. General Kayani is a moderate, pro-American infantry commander who is widely seen as commanding respect within the army and, within Western circles, as a potential alternative to General Musharraf.

General Kayani and other military leaders are widely believed to be eager to pull the army out of politics and focus its attention purely on securing the country.

Senior administration officials in Washington said they were concerned that the longer the constitutional crisis in Pakistan continued, the more diverted Pakistan’s army would be from the mission the United States wants it focused on: fighting terrorism in the country’s border areas.

The officials said there was growing worry in Washington that the situation unfolding in the mountainous region of Swat, where Islamic militants sympathetic to the Taliban and Al Qaeda are battling Pakistan’s Army, was a sign that General Musharraf — and the Pakistani Army — might be too busy jailing political opponents to fight militants.

The administration officials said they were also dismayed that General Musharraf last week released 25 militants in exchange for 213 soldiers captured by militants in August, and agreed to withdraw soldiers from certain areas of South Waziristan.

Since spring, concern has been growing in the armed forces that General Musharraf’s battle to remain in power and his recent political blunders have cost him popularity with the public and damaged the reputation of the armed forces, Western and Pakistani military analysts say.

The army’s poor performance battling militants in the country’s rugged tribal areas in the northwest has placed enormous strain on the army as well. Hundreds of soldiers have died, dozens have surrendered without a fight and militants have carried out beheadings to demoralize the force.

“The army is getting more and more concerned and worried and disturbed,” said Talat Masood, a retired general and political analyst. “They have a genuine engagement in the tribal belt of Frontier Province and Baluchistan,” he said, referring to armed clashes. “And now they have such a major confrontation between the military and civil sectors of society, and the lines are getting sharper.”

While the military supports the emergency, it is doing so with caution, and there are red lines the army will not cross, Western military officials in Pakistan said. “Kayani is loyal to Musharraf,” said one Western military official. “But also to Pakistan.”

One red line the military would probably not be prepared to cross would be if it were called on to maintain internal security anywhere beyond the areas of the insurgency. If widespread political protests were to emerge, the army could be called out to enforce law and order.

While no large-scale protests have emerged since the emergency was declared, the apparent collapse over the last week of American-backed talks to create a power-sharing deal between Ms. Bhutto and General Musharraf could lead to more street confrontations, diplomats said.

As General Musharraf has refused to lift his emergency declaration, lawmakers in Washington have stepped up threats to freeze aid payments to Islamabad.

“There is widespread disapproval in Congress of these actions,” said Representative Nita M. Lowey, a New York Democrat who is on the House Appropriations Committee. “As long as the emergency rule continues, I don’t know if we can provide direct cash assistance to the Musharraf government.”

But other top Democrats say they are wary about endorsing cuts in aid, citing concern that it could undermine efforts to fight Al Qaeda in Pakistan. And the Western military official in Pakistan warned that an aid cutoff could anger Pakistan’s army.

Other experts argue that pressure could build on General Musharraf if the corps commanders believed that the president’s actions threatened the $1 billion in annual aid Washington provides to Pakistan’s military.

“The military is pretty demoralized right now,” said Christine Fair, a Pakistan analyst in Washington. “But what keeps Musharraf in the position he is in with the military is the huge largess from the United States.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/15/w...8b8b40c2&ex=1352782800&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
 

500dollars

Potential Star
Registered
Re: STATE OF EMERGENCY Pakistan's Paresses Musharraf Suspends Constitution G Bush Jea

Fuck All Politicans Of All Governments
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: STATE OF EMERGENCY Pakistan's Paresses Musharraf Suspends Constitution G Bush Jea

Washington secretly helped Pakistan
guard nuclear arms​

Boston Globe
By David E. Sanger and William J. Broad
New York Times News Service / November 18, 2007

WASHINGTON - Over the past six years, the Bush administration has spent almost $100 million on a highly classified program to help General Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan's president, secure his country's nuclear weapons, according to current and former senior administration officials.

But with the future of that country's leadership in doubt, debate is intensifying about whether Washington has done enough to help protect the warheads and laboratories, and whether Pakistan's reluctance to reveal critical details about its arsenal has undercut the effectiveness of the continuing security effort.

The aid, buried in secret portions of the federal budget, paid for the training of Pakistani personnel in the United States and the construction of a nuclear security-training center in Pakistan, a facility that US officials say is nowhere near completion, though it was supposed to be in operation this year.

A raft of equipment - from helicopters to night-vision goggles and nuclear detection equipment - was given to Pakistan to help secure its nuclear material, its warheads, and the laboratories that were the site of the worst known case of nuclear proliferation in the atomic age.

While US officials say that they believe the arsenal is safe at the moment, and that they take at face value Pakistani assurances that security is vastly improved, in many cases the Pakistani government has been reluctant to show US officials how or where the gear is actually used.

The US program was created after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, when the Bush administration debated whether to share with Pakistan one of the crown jewels of US nuclear protection technology, known as permissive action links, or PALS, a system to keep a weapon from detonating without proper codes and authorizations.

In the end, despite past federal aid to France and Russia on delicate points of nuclear security, the administration decided that it could not share the system with the Pakistanis because of legal restrictions.

In addition, the Pakistanis were suspicious that any American-made technology in their warheads could include a secret kill switch, enabling the Americans to turn off their weapons.

The New York Times has known details of the secret program for more than three years but agreed to delay publication of the report at the request of the Bush administration, which contended that premature disclosure could hurt the effort to secure the weapons.

Since then, some elements of the program have been discussed in the Pakistani news media and in a presentation late last year by the leader of Pakistan's nuclear safety effort. Early last week, the White House withdrew its request that publication be withheld, though it was unwilling to discuss details of the program.

In recent days, US officials have expressed confidence that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is well secured. "I don't see any indication right now that security of those weapons is in jeopardy, but clearly we are very watchful, as we should be," Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Pentagon news conference Thursday.

The secret program was designed by the Energy Department and the State Department, and it drew heavily from the effort over the past decade to secure nuclear weapons, stockpiles, and materials in Russia, and other former Soviet states. Much of the money for Pakistan was spent on physical security, such as fencing and surveillance systems, and equipment for tracking nuclear material if it left secure areas.

© Copyright 2007 Globe Newspaper Company.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/as..._secretly_helped_pakistan_guard_nuclear_arms/
 
Top