# Pakistan declares state of emergency



## zipperhead_cop (3 Nov 2007)

This can't be good:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071103/ap_on_re_as/pakistan
Pakistan's Musharraf declares emergency 

By MATTHEW PENNINGTON, Associated Press Writer 
7 minutes ago

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - President Gen. Pervez Musharraf declared a state of emergency in Pakistan on Saturday ahead of a crucial Supreme Court decision on whether to overturn his recent election win and amid rising Islamic militant violence. 

The government blocked transmissions of private news channels in several cities and telephone services in the capital, Islamabad, were cut. Dozens of police blocked the road in front of the Supreme Court building where judges were believed to be inside.

"The chief of army staff has proclaimed a state of emergency and issued a provisional constitutional order," a newscaster on Pakistan TV said, adding that he would address the nation later Saturday.

Musharraf, who took power in a 1999 coup, is also chief of the army.

The U.S. and other Western allies urged him this week not to jeopardize the country's transition to democracy. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, said Thursday the U.S. would not support any move by Musharaff to declare martial law.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) — President Gen. Pervez Musharraf declared a state of emergency in Pakistan on Saturday ahead of a crucial Supreme Court decision on whether to overturn his recent election win and amid rising militant violence.

"The chief of army staff has proclaimed a state of emergency and issued a provisional constitutional order," a newscaster on Pakistan TV said.

Dozens of police blocked the road in front of the Supreme Court building in Islamabad where judges were believed to be inside.

Musharraf, who took power in a 1999 coup, is also chief of the army. PTV said he would address the nation later Saturday.

The state TV report gave no reason for the emergency but it follows weeks of speculation that he could take the step, amid rising political turmoil and Islamic violence.

The U.S. and other Western allies urged him this week not to jeopardize the country's transition to democracy. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, said Thursday the U.S. would not support any move by Musharaff to declare martial law.

During previous emergencies in Pakistan, a provisional constitutional order has led to the suspension of some basic rights of citizens and for judges to take a fresh oath of office.

"This is the most condemnable act," said Ahsan Iqbal, a spokesman for the opposition PML-N party of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif who Musharraf barred from returning to exile to Pakistan in September to mount a campaign against military rule.

"The whole nation will resist this extra-constitutional measure," he said.

The government blocked transmissions of private news channels in the capital and other cities.

Shahzad Iqbal, an official at a cable TV news provider in Islamabad said authorities were blocking its transmissions of private news channels in the capital and neighboring Rawalpindi. State TV was still on the air.

"The government has done it," he said. 

Residents of Karachi said their cable TV was also off the air.

So if Musharraf puts the country into full martial law mode, who is going to step up to do anything about it?  And I have to wonder if this is just a bit coincidental with Bhutto's charges getting dropped against her this week and her immanent return to Pakistan?


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Nov 2007)

Beat me to the punch Zipperhead.  And just when I got through saying that all of "no news" out of the middle east was "good news".  Is that hubris or irony or both? :-\

It looks like there is still more work to be done - and Musharraf looks way to happy in the National Post photograph.

So what is the difference between Musharraf and Chavez - beyond the fact that he is "our" bast..d.  Oh well.  The millenium's a long time coming (2 already and still counting) and you have to work with the tools available.


----------



## Infanteer (3 Nov 2007)

This really promotes the West's claim to "champion of democracy" in the region.  With friends like these....

Meanwhile, we seem to be spoiling for a fight and calling for regime change of the country next door despite it having an elected head of government and a functioning parliament.   ???


----------



## geo (3 Nov 2007)

Heh... convenience makes strange bedfellows


----------



## vonGarvin (3 Nov 2007)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Meanwhile, we seem to be spoiling for a fight and calling for regime change of the country next door despite it having *an elected head of government and a functioning parliament. *  ???



While that is true, democracy in itself must not be the only litmus test.  After all, Hitler was elected, and, for a time, had a functioning parliament.  And if by "functioning" you mean the odd call for Israel to be destroyed in flames, well....(I know, I know, more bluster for its own people as to functioning as a real threat to Israel, but...).  As well, the government of that "democracy" is fighting us in Afghanistan by subversive means (smuggled weapons, etc)....

Also, just because it's a state of emergency, don't forget for a moment that in Canada, the True North Strong and Free, we had a state of emergency of our own.  Terrorists were conducting a campaign to force the hand of the government, and our open democracy clamped down: hard.  So, even though "Democracy" and "Pakistan" may go together like Salt and coffee lids (they don't, that's the metaphor I was trying to get....) the simple fact that he (Musharraf) has declared a state of emergency, some people may oppose it, and to quote that "Great Canadian" Pierre Trudeau :
"...there are a lot of bleeding hearts around who just don't like to see people with helmets and guns. All I can say is, go on and bleed, but it is more important to keep law and order in the society than to be worried about weak-kneed people..."
"...society must take every means at its disposal to defend itself against the emergence of a parallel power which defies the elected power in this country and I think that goes to any distance. So long as there is a power in here which is challenging the elected representative of the people I think that power must be stopped and I think it's only, I repeat, weak-kneed bleeding hearts who are afraid to take these measures."


Now, Sunil Ram has a differing opinion:
"Defence and security analyst Sunil Ram told CTV Newsnet that Musharraf has triggered crises before to keep his grip on power.
"You'll notice that every time a key terrorist/martial law type situation occurs, it is generally right before a political decision is being made on his right to have the duality of being the head of the military as well has the head of the civilian government," he said.
"So this event isn't a surprise."" (from http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071103/pakistan_emergency_071103/20071103?hub=TopStories)


----------



## Infanteer (3 Nov 2007)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> While that is true, democracy in itself must not be the only litmus test.



Lest I be accused of being either an apologist for Iran or a dreamer of global democracy, I should clarify my earlier comment.  I am pragmatic enough to realize that:

1.  The prerequisites to a functioning democracy (ie: middle class, civil society, independent judiciary, etc) are pretty scare

2.  One has to be realistic in an appreciation of ones friends, enemies, and interests. 

My earlier post was more a rhetorical question to highlight the confusing state of affairs in the Mid-East/South Asia.  In the end, we must look at our ultimate goal - which is what?  Stability seems like a good one.

It can be argued that Afghanistan was a region of instability under the Taliban - it was locked in a civil war with the Northern Alliance and it provided safe haven to militant Sunni groups looking to export jihad.

Is Pakistan a region of stability?  Our troubles along the Pakistan/Afghan border maybe say yes, as well as the fact that the country is reeling under the "blowback" of former dictator Zia al-Huq's "Islamification" of the country in the 1980's to find a new way to offset Indian dominance - radical groups abound in local politics and we've seen many anecdotes of internal dissention within the ISI on where government support is really going.  Some could also say it is a "zone of stability" in that Musharraf has kept the country on a relatively secular path and has prevented more extreme elements from taking the helm of the nuclear-armed country and possibly going at it with India.  I guess determining if Pakistan in its current form is a "zone of stability" or a "zone of instability" (and to what degree) should inform our relations with that country.

Iran, on the other case, seems to be a "zone of stability".  It is a relatively stable society with a functioning government and active political dialogue.  The fact is that the US Administration has missed numerous occasions where rapprochement with Tehran could have helped in leveraging the stability their in other places.  Instead, they've put in an "Axis of Evil" ringed the country with military forces - any guess as to why they replaced a progressive reformer with a nationalist as President and started kicking up the rhetoric and tacit opposition to Western efforts in the region - something akin to a hissing cat with its back up and its claws out comes to mind.  Opponents to Iran cite it's support for extremism abroad, it's anti-Israeli rhetoric, and its nuclear ambitions as signs that it is a "zone of instability".  

IMHO, I don't feel that Iran poses the threat some would make it out to be - I am, frankly, more concerned with what is going on in Afghanistan (and neighbouring Pakistan) and Iraq (and neighbouring Turkey and Saudi Arabia) then what the lone Shia, Persian state is up to.  Support for Hezbollah doesn't really affect us in the West - they are an "inward" looking group as opposed to an "outward" looking one that the global Salafists represent - Al Qa'ida is Sunni, not Shia - and none of the foreign terror attacks we've seen before and after 9/11 were committed by Shia extremists.  The anti-Israeli rhetoric is a non-starter - it is common in the region like health-care debate is here and it gathers votes.  The nuclear issue is very complicated when you consider that teetering Sunni Pakistan and the Jewish state of Israel are armed and Iran is not - lets not fall into the trap of believing that Tehran seeks nuclear warheads to equip Al Qa'ida or that it is a race to simply start a nuclear holocaust in the region.  I believe that Iran could rapidly become a "zone of instability" - with heightened support of anti-Western groups and a nuclear standoff, but this would be one that we in the West would have to help to make happen.

How about other players in the region allies?  What happens when Musharraf kicks the bucket and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt figures it has a good shot at a populist uprising?  Assad has a pretty firm grip on Syria - do we want to isolate him or "decapitate" his government and have Damascus become another Baghdad?  Hell, even Iraq under Saddam could be argued as a "zone of stability" when you consider that he had no links to AQ or other Sunni extremist groups and that he did not have or export WMDs and that he kept the hardcore guys of both the Sunni and Shia under wraps in order to prop up his military dictatorship - I guess you could see him as a form of Musharraf who was more cruel but more successful in promoting stability.

One wonders how different our war in Afghanistan would be if Sunni extremists didn't have the opportunity to practice and hone their abilities, such as the IED Campaign, in Iraq....


----------



## tomahawk6 (3 Nov 2007)

Wow Infanteer that post careened all over the roadway. Glad you were able to regain control. 
Pakistan is the subject of this thread and there is plenty to keep us occupied. Pakistan has to be seen as an extension of the Afghan campaign. It is the base from which the new jihadi's attack Afghanistan from. They have carved out a safe haven for themselves in Waziristan from which to attack the Pakistani government. This was Mushareffs biggest mistake trying to make peace with AQ/Taliban. Now that Bhutto and Mushareff have an alliance of sorts the General is beginning to put the screws to the bad guys. If he wins Pakistan's moderates win. If he loses then the new jihadi's not only will have a huge base from which to attack their neighbors but they will also have nuclear weapons. Today a USAF Predator struck a target inside northern Pakistan killing 10 AQ/Taliban this in itself sends a message to AQ that they have no safe haven in Pakistan.


----------



## Infanteer (3 Nov 2007)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Wow Infanteer that post careened all over the roadway. Glad you were able to regain control.



Yeah, it ran away for a bit there, but I find you can't look at A without considering B, C and D and the second and third order effects on E, F, and G.



> Pakistan is the subject of this thread and there is plenty to keep us occupied. Pakistan has to be seen as an extension of the Afghan campaign. It is the base from which the new jihadi's attack Afghanistan from. They have carved out a safe haven for themselves in Waziristan from which to attack the Pakistani government.



Pakistan is more than simply an extention of Afghanistan or a battle of good secular government vs evil fundamentalists hiding in the hills.  Anything concerning Pakistani security must contend with their historic relationship (and downright erratic fear) of India.  Pakistan's "Islamification" in the '80's was an effort to secure a new power base to fight India.  It's efforts in Afghanistan and its creation of the Taliban along with its corollary efforts in the Kashmir are related to flank security.  Nuclear weapons, same thing.  Let's not confuse Pakistan for what it isn't - viewing it from our "war on terror" perspective and not its "fear of India" one can lead to false conclusions.  It isn't a dedicated ally, having been strong-armed into doing a 180 with regards to local policies (ie: Afghanistan) following 9/11.  We harangue Iran for its support of neighbouring insurgents, but the ISI is equally renowned for its duplicitous activities.

Is Musharraf important?  I don't know - I've read convincing material that suggests that the specter of the Islamic bomb in Pakistan is pretty much nonexistent due to the military's role in Pakistani society.  I'm not sure I place faith in an ally of convenience; 150,000 US soldiers tied down in Waziristan may have been better than 150,000 US soldiers tied down in Mesopotamia....


----------



## tomahawk6 (3 Nov 2007)

Mushareff has done alot of good in neutralizing the AQ/Taliban sympathizers in ISI and other parts of the armed forces. While military dictators get short shrift by the left there is no similar disdain for totalitarian dictators. Some nations need a benevolent military dictatorship from time to time.


----------



## MarkOttawa (4 Nov 2007)

*Update:*

Activists Detained in Pakistan Emergency
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jIE0IUn4WIiaMBpjG8SI_6H5RXzgD8SMRNNG0



> Police wielding assault rifles rounded up opposition leaders and rights activists Sunday after Pakistan's military ruler suspended the constitution, ousted the top justice and deployed troops to fight what he called rising Islamic extremism.
> 
> Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who seized power in a 1999 coup but had promised to hand over his army fatigues and become a civilian president this year, declared a state of emergency Saturday night, dashing hopes of a smooth transition to democracy for the nuclear-armed nation.
> 
> ...



Pakistanis confront news blackout under emergency rule
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/245195/ROUNDUP_Pakistanis_confront_news_blackout_under_emergency_rule



> Pakistan's electronic media audience was in virtual darkness Sunday as private television channels broadcast through cable networks were suspended by President Pervez Musharraf's imposition of martial law.
> 
> Musharraf, who assumed power by ousting a democratically elected government in 1999, Saturday afternoon partially suspended the country's constitution, curtailed civil rights and replaced top members of the judiciary that he saw as a threat to his rule.
> 
> ...



A Pakistani news website:
http://www.paktribune.com/index.shtml

U.S. unlikely to halt Pakistan aid
Washington probably will continue to scold Musharraf but won't risk alienating a key ally in its war on terrorism.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-uspak4nov04,0,4538451.story?coll=la-tot-world&track=ntothtml



> For six years, the United States has staunchly supported Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, choosing to back a military leader seen as a strong ally in the "war on terror" rather than push the general more forcefully for democratic reforms.
> 
> But the risks associated with that strategy have become increasingly apparent in recent months, as Al Qaeda and the Taliban have gained strength in Pakistan's northwest frontier area despite billions of dollars in military aid to Musharraf's government since the Sept. 11 attacks.
> 
> ...



Canada condemns Pakistan emergency rule
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jYhS6mvu-y3ScQqmzfhTGAH75rQg



> Canada condemned Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf's declaration of emergency rule Saturday, urging his government to lift it and hold free elections, in a foreign minister statement.
> 
> "Canada condemns the imposition of emergency rule in Pakistan," Foreign Minister Maxime Bernier said in the statement.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## tomahawk6 (4 Nov 2007)

http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14555479

Former ISI chief Hamid Gul arrested

Sunday, 04 November , 2007, 16:37 

Islamabad: Former chief of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Hamid Gul was arrested here on Sunday in continuing crackdown by the government in emergency-ruled Pakistan. 

Gul was taken into custody by policemen who pushed him into a van and whisked him away, Geo TV reported.

"It is not an emergency, it's martial law. One man has put the country at stake to save his rule," the outspoken former spy chief said before he was taken away by the police from a public gathering here. 

Gul's arrest came amidst a crackdown by the government of President Pervez Musharraf on opposition leaders, senior lawyers and rights activists following the imposition of emergency on Saturday. 

It was not immediately known why Gul had been arrested. 

The beleaguered military ruler has suspended key fundamental rights and given security agencies sweeping power to arrest or detain people without charges. 

In the weeks before the imposition of emergency, Gul had been at the centre of a controversy after media reports suggested that he was one of the persons named by former premier Benazir Bhutto as posing a threat to her life. 

Bhutto had named at least four such persons in a letter written to Musharraf two days before her return to Pakistan from self-exile on October 18, but she never publicly identified them.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Nov 2007)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> .... (The jihadis) have carved out a safe haven for themselves in Waziristan from which to attack the Pakistani government. This was Mushareffs biggest mistake trying to make peace with AQ/Taliban. Now that Bhutto and Mushareff have an alliance of sorts the General is beginning to put the screws to the bad guys. If he wins Pakistan's moderates win. If he loses then the new jihadi's not only will have a huge base from which to attack their neighbors but they will also have nuclear weapons. Today a USAF Predator struck a target inside northern Pakistan killing 10 AQ/Taliban this in itself sends a message to AQ that they have no safe haven in Pakistan.




A couple of interesting points there.

The first one is the notion of Waziristan as a safe haven for the Taliban/AQ and it being a mistake to declare it as such.  Here's an alternate read.

Pakistan is the misbegotten spawn of Jenna and Clement Attlee.  It has no reason to exist as a unified entity.

The country of Pakistan is at least three separate countries: 
the Punjab-the land of five rivers on the high plateau and foothills that define the headwaters of the river Indus;
the Valley of the River Indus itself and the delta at its mouth - the ancient land of the Mohenjo-Daro civilization;
the Mountains of the West - including the Kush and Waziristan.

These three lands have produced three distinct cultures with multiple subdivisions.  That character was expressly recognized under the old imperial governance system where "India" including Pakistan and Burma was a Supra-National enterprise.  The Raj was a skeleton administration that kept the peace amongst some 400-plus local governments including a whole bunch of Princes, Nabobs and Maharannis - Local Monarchs.

What Clement did was hand over the mechanisms of maintaining internal stability to the same group of people that were the cause of the instability.  That is perhaps the necessary messy corollary to democracy but it does nothing to promote stability and security.

Jenna disagreed with the majoritarianism that would have seen his muslims and, I believe, his Mughals, sidelined permanently.  Britain may have quieted the Mughals during the Raj but they never eliminated them.  In fact they kept them in place and did business with them just as they did with the Gujarattis, Sindis, Sikhs and Nepalis etc.   What Jenna aspired to was to secure the Mughal empire from the British Indian Empire (Note that Victoria was Queen of Britain and Empress of India, not Queen of India.  She was above the fray in India.  She was not one of the local monarchs, she was above the monarchs.  Note also she was never styled as Empress in the English speaking countries in the way that the Habsburg and Romanovs styled their rulers). In doing so he aimed to replace a caste that had worn out its welcome over the course of the previous 200 years with one that had worn out its welcome over the previous 1000 years.  The newcomers, the Brits, were originally seen as a better bet than the previous overlords - and many still saw them that way in 1947. Witness the disruptions and dislocations that coincided with independence and that ultimately saw the pacifist Gandhi assassinated.   

Attlee's position is/was Jack Layton's position.  He just wanted to bring the troops home, cocoon Britain from the harsh realities of the world and feed and clothe those poor and downtrodden factory workers that elected him.  Essentially "Internationalism" was a scam designed to secure the place in society of the new "middle class" - the "working class".  The factory worker in Manchester was incomparably better off than the Indian working in the fields - and he wanted to stay that way.  And Jack's supporters want to ensure that they stay better off than Mexicans, Afghans and Rwandans. Not an entirely untenable position but there is nothing of charity and fellowship and communalism in that position.  It is one of self-interest pure and simple.  Troops out - and let the Indians continue their murderous ways.

60 years later we are back where we started.

We still have the peoples of the river, the peoples of the plains of the Punjab and the peoples of the hills. We still have somebody trying to establish empire over them only now we have three governments contesting the right to run the Empire: the government in New Delhi, the one in Islamabad and the one in Kabul (interesting to note that two out of those three cities have no historical roots - they are modern creations like Bytown on the Rideau and created for exactly the same reasons).

The people of the hills have always been the hardest to control.  The river peoples are tied to their cities.  The peoples of the plains are controllable by people on horses and in vehicles.  The peoples of the hills and the mountains however are mobile in an environment where horses and technology don't offer advantages and where their lack of material positions leaves them little to fret over if a move is required.

The Durand Line decision between New Delhi and Kabul in the 19th century was an attempt at a strategy that was employed by the upstart empires of Moscow and Berlin when they carved up the Warsaw based empire of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.  It is also the reason that Kurdistan is scattered across 4 or 5 borders in similar country to the Kush and to similar effect.  

All of this is to say that Musharraf has been dealt a bad hand - or a Gordian/Kurdian Knot if you prefer.

Nobody has ever been really able to force mountain people into submission.  The best that can be hoped for is to keep them in splendid isolation.

I believe that by striking a deal with Waziristan Musharraf hoped to concentrate his troubles in one spot by setting up a safe-haven for AQ, just as he did at the Red Mosque. It is the Realpolitik-Geopolitik version of "keeping your friends close but your enemies closer".  If you know where they are then you know better what they are up to and can more easily hold them liable.  This is particularly true in Waziristan where, apparently, the local hospitality laws make it difficult for the locals to take action against foreigners unless the foreigners take action against them.  More importantly they seem to be honour bound to defend their guests.  What Musharraf did was put the locals on notice that they could welcome AQ but would have to stand surety for their actions.

Unfortunately not every bee went to the honey pot and not every bee in the pot was kept in the pot.  But, like the Red Mosque, or the British deal at Masum Ghar, it does have the advantage of concentrating your problems into a useful target and assisting in "attriting" your enemies when the opportunity presents itself.

The PRTs and Police Stations are performing a similar role as seen in the Panjwaii and the Arghandab and in Helmand and in Iraq.  The create inviting targets that encourage the enemy to concentrate into useful targets.

Its a messy process with an inconclusive endgame but it is likely the only one that works.

As to Musharraf - if he can get the peoples of the plains (the Punjabis of Lahore) and the peoples of the river and the delta (the merchants of Karachi) on side then he can hope to re-establish some semblance of order where it counts - where the money is made.  For that he needs the Mughal horsemen of the Army, the people of the Punjab and the merchants of Karachi.  All of those are the most outward looking , modernizing elements in his "empire".  And to get those people onside he needs Bhutto as well as the Army.  In so doing he needs to switch from the horses he has been riding, the ISI/Islamists and the Army, to the Army and the "Modernists".

So far he seems to be making a hash of the transfer....


----------



## MarkOttawa (7 Nov 2007)

A guest-post at _Daimnation!_

The Pakistani mess
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/010333.html

Then there's this:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2007/11/american_arms_may_in_fact_be_k.html



> More than $10 billion in aid to Pakistan since Sept. 11, and the good news is that at least it doesn't look like the weapons we've provided to Pervez Musharraf's military are being used to beat back democracy or prop up the dictatorship. Of course, not much of them are being used to fight "extremists" either.
> 
> Since Sept. 11, the U.S. has sought to buy Pakistani cooperation in the war on terrorism through a multibillion-dollar assistance program. U.S. aid to Pakistan over the past six years has totaled $10.59 billion, according to State Department figures. In the decade before Sept. 11, that figure was only about $400 million.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Greymatters (7 Nov 2007)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14555479
> Former ISI chief Hamid Gul arrested
> Sunday, 04 November , 2007, 16:37



Nobody seems to be willing to put their cards on the table for this one (at least not yet).  Was Mooshy heading off plans for a coup d'etat?  The intelligence chief is usually a key player in these events, either trying to stop it or being a part of it.  Considering the ISI's past loyalties, its not hard to imagine a key section of ISI might have been willing to help dump the current leadership.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (9 Nov 2007)

The hits just keep on coming:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071109/ap_on_re_as/pakistan
Bhutto under house arrest in Pakistan  

By ZARAR KHAN, Associated Press Writer 
1 hour, 11 minutes ago

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - Pakistani police placed opposition leader Benazir Bhutto under house arrest Friday, uncoiling barbed wire in front of her Islamabad villa, and reportedly rounding up thousands of her supporters to block a mass protest against emergency rule. 

The United States called for the restrictions on Bhutto to be lifted, saying it was "crucial for Pakistan's future that moderate political forces work together to bring Pakistan back on the path to democracy." A government spokesman promised she would be free by Saturday.

Bhutto twice tried to leave in her car on Friday, telling police: "Do not raise hands on women. You are Muslims. This is un-Islamic." They responded by blocking her way with an armored vehicle.

The former prime minister had planned to defy a ban on political gatherings and address a rally in nearby Rawalpindi, where police used tear gas and batons to chase off hundreds of supporters who staged wildcat protests and hurled stones. More than 100 were arrested.

The city mayor said they had reports suicide bombers might attack the rally. Deputy Information Minister Tariq Azim said there was a restraining order against Bhutto, telling her to stay at her Islamabad home and not proceed to Rawalpindi because of the security threat.

"I expect that (the order) is all over by now," Azim told The Associated Press. "She will be free to move tomorrow."

President Gen. Pervez Musharraf came under increased pressure from his chief international supporter, the United States.

"We remain concerned about the continued state of emergency and curtailment of basic freedoms, and urge Pakistani authorities to quickly return to constitutional order and democratic norms," Gordon Johndroe, a spokesman for the National Security Council said in a statement. "Former Prime Minister Bhutto and other political party members must be permitted freedom of movement and all protesters released."

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, speaking to reporters earlier Friday on his plane en route home from a weeklong visit to Asia, said he was concerned Musharraf's emergency declaration and the protests and arrests that it spawned could affect operations in Afghanistan.

"The concern I have is that the longer the internal problems continue, the more distracted the Pakistani army and security services will be in terms of the internal situation rather than focusing on the terrorist threat in the frontier area," said Gates.

Further afield, a suicide bombing at a government minister's home in the northwestern city of Peshawar killed four people. Minister for Political Affairs Amir Muqam was unhurt.

The attack underscored the threat posed by religious extremists in this Islamic nation that Musharraf and Bhutto are sparring over. It was cited by Musharraf as the primary reason for imposing the state of emergency last Saturday.

But most of the thousands of people rounded up countrywide since have been moderates – lawyers and activists from secular opposition parties, such as Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party. The mass detentions have fueled criticism that Musharraf – who seized power in a 1999 coup – declared the emergency to maintain his own grip on power.

Friday's crackdown showed that Musharraf was not letting up on his political rivals, despite saying a day earlier that parliamentary elections would go ahead by mid-February, just a month later than originally planned. His announcement came after intense U.S. pressure.

But the crackdown further dimmed prospects that Bhutto and Musharraf would soon form an alliance, which Washington has pushed for, against Islamic extremists.

Speaking to a few dozen supporters inside the barricades after her second foiled attempt to escape, Bhutto said that "we suspended our negotiations" with Musharraf after the emergency was imposed. She also repeated demands that Musharraf step down as army chief by next week, when his presidential term expires.

Musharraf's popularity has plummeted this year amid growing resentment of military rule and his government's failure to curb Taliban and al-Qaida militants.

Outside Bhutto's house scores of police, some in riot gear, monitored her supporters, who repeatedly tried to remove barbed wire and steel and concrete barriers. 

At least 30 Bhutto supporters were arrested, including a woman who showed up with flowers. An old bearded man who showed up with a sharp machete and a goat he planned to sacrifice to bring Bhutto good luck was simply shooed away by police. 

There was confusion over whether authorities had served Bhutto with a formal detention order. Officials said they had, but Bhutto's aides said they had not received it – and would not accept it. An intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to media, said Bhutto was ordered detained for 30 days, but Azim denied that. 

After being turned back twice, Bhutto delivered an address heard by reporters on the other side of the barricades. 

"I want to tell you to have courage because this battle is against dictatorship and it will be won by the people," she told her followers. 

Her supporters said they would only be further emboldened by Friday's clampdown. 

"We are going to besiege" Islamabad, said Abida Hussain, a former ambassador to the United States. "Our party activists have been mobilized to move out and take to the streets." 

Authorities appeared determined to stop them. Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party, or PPP, claimed Friday that 5,000 of its supporters had been arrested in the last three days across the eastern province of Punjab. But security officials said only 1,100 had been detained. 

In Rawalpindi, the normally bustling city near Islamabad where Bhutto had planned to hold her rally Friday, hundreds of police – some on horseback, motorcycles or in armored vehicles – kept a tight grip on the largely empty streets and moved fast against any hint of protest. 

Rawalpindi's mayor had earlier in the day warned of a "credible report" that six or seven bombers were preparing a repeat of last month's attack of Bhutto's jubilant homecoming procession in the southern city of Karachi after eight years of exile. She escaped unharmed, but more than 145 people died in the attack, blamed on Islamic militants. 

Rawalpindi has also been hit by a series of suicide attacks, targeting the military. 

There were also scattered protests in Peshawar and Karachi, where opposition supporters blocked some roads with burning tires.


----------



## tomahawk6 (9 Nov 2007)

She actually isnt under house arrest technically speaking. She just cant leave.She can receive visitors. She had been planning a protest which could have brought hundreds of thousands of people into the streets and loyalty of the security forces might have been put to the test, something the military couldnt chance.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (9 Nov 2007)

Seems like Musharraf has a lot of balls in the air right now.  But is Bhutto just against the "state of emergency" and in support of the judicial suggestions, or is there some other element to her that he is trying to stifle?


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Nov 2007)

And how much of this is "Theatre"?


----------



## tomahawk6 (10 Nov 2007)

Her position in my view is "show" to maintain her street credibility.


----------



## tomahawk6 (16 Nov 2007)

While the world is focused on the events in the capitol the bad guys are gaining ground in the tribal areas. In the near term this may be good for Afghanistan as the number of fighters coming into the country from Pakistan may drop as the jihadists focus on toppling the Pakistani government.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/16/world/asia/16swat.html?ex=1352869200&en=52ea69b763dd0258&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss


----------



## zipperhead_cop (16 Nov 2007)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> While the world is focused on the events in the capitol the bad guys are gaining ground in the tribal areas. In the near term this may be good for Afghanistan as the number of fighters coming into the country from Pakistan may drop as the jihadists focus on toppling the Pakistani government.



Yeah, but when Pakistan spins out into a full out civil war, who all do you think is going to get sucked in to assist?  Plus, that location strikes me as a regroup/rearm position and is still pretty conveniently close to the Afghanistan border.


----------



## MarkOttawa (18 Nov 2007)

This is ominous (but thankfully maybe not so much for Afghanistan, see penultimate paragraph):
http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/277306



> But from an Afghan point of view, the most disturbing news came in a two-part series this week by _Asia Times_ correspondent Syed Saleem Shahzad datelined from the Nawa Pass overlooking the border.
> 
> Shahzad quoted a senior Taliban figure as saying a wide range of like-minded militant groups, including the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban and Al Qaeda, have agreed on a declaration of independence, with the goal of establishing an "Islamic emirate" that will eat into territory on both sides of the border.
> 
> ...



The _Asia Times_ articles:

RISE OF THE NEO-TALIBAN, Part 2 [emirate material]
'Pain has become the remedy'
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IK14Df04.html

RISE OF THE NEO-TALIBAN, Part 1
Death by the light of a silvery moon
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IK13Df01.html

And about time for this:
http://www.latimes.com/news/la-fg-pakaid18nov18,0,5819846.story?coll=la-tot-topstories&track=ntothtml



> With the Pakistani government in turmoil, senior Pentagon officials are quietly moving to overhaul the system of massive U.S. military aid to the country by more directly tying the payments to Islamabad's success in combating Islamic militants...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## JBoyd (18 Nov 2007)

US Envoy: Pakistan Must End Emergency 
Sunday, November 18, 2007 9:50:50 AM
By MATTHEW ROSENBERG 
http://www.mail.com/Article.aspx?articlepath=APNews\Top%20Headlines\20071118\Pakistan_20071118.xml&cat=topheadlines&subcat=&pageid=1



> Despite a blunt call from Washington's No. 2 diplomat that emergency rule must be lifted and political opponents freed ahead of elections, there was no immediate sign that President Gen. Pervez Musharraf would heed the advice.
> 
> Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte delivered the message during a two-hour meeting Saturday with Musharraf and Pakistan's deputy army commander, Gen. Ashfaq Kayani. The envoy's visit was seen as a last best chance to ease the latest political turmoil in Pakistan.
> 
> ...


----------



## MarkOttawa (18 Nov 2007)

The big worry:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/washington/18nuke.html?adxnnl=1&ref=todayspaper&adxnnlx=1195401673-1DX/BOCTrhnEZjko3Ng6tw



> Over the past six years, the Bush administration has spent almost $100 million on a highly classified program to help Gen. 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.
> 
> ...


----------



## MarkOttawa (19 Nov 2007)

I'm not sure this is the right moment for this initiative to go ahead (nice map):

U.S. Hopes to Use Pakistani Tribes Against Al Qaeda
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/19/washington/19policy.html?pagewanted=1&adxnnl=1&ref=todayspaper&adxnnlx=1195480800-IZmHO7kMGJwqz/RAe5SXOA



> WASHINGTON, Nov. 18 — A new and classified American military proposal outlines an intensified effort to enlist tribal leaders in the frontier areas of Pakistan in the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, as part of a broader effort to bolster Pakistani forces against an expanding militancy, American military officials said.
> 
> If adopted, the proposal would join elements of a shift in strategy that would also be likely to expand the presence of American military trainers in Pakistan, directly finance a separate tribal paramilitary force that until now has proved largely ineffective and pay militias that agreed to fight Al Qaeda and foreign extremists, officials said. The United States now has only about 50 troops in Pakistan, a Pentagon spokesman said, a force that could grow by dozens under the new approach.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Mike Baker (20 Nov 2007)

Pakistan frees some detainees, sets election date(LINK)



> ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (CNN) -- Elections for Pakistan's national assembly and its four provincial assemblies have been scheduled for January 8, and thousands of people jailed under emergency rule reportedly have been released, officials said Tuesday.


----------



## MarkOttawa (20 Nov 2007)

Further to this U.S. Hopes to Use Pakistani Tribes Against Al Qaeda just above, something actually seems to be in place (from Reuters):
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/US_to_aid_Pakistani_frontier_force_against_militants/articleshow/2554762.cms



> WASHINGTON: The United States has set up a program to train and equip a Pakistani paramilitary force recruited from tribal areas to try to counter Islamist militants, the Pentagon said on Monday.
> 
> Washington would *supply equipment like helmets and flak vests to the tribal force, known as the Frontier Corps, but would not provide weapons or ammunition, Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell told reporters. The plan also calls for the involvement of US Army trainers* [emphasis added].
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## tomahawk6 (23 Nov 2007)

Breaking -  Explosions near Pakistani Army hq.


----------



## midget-boyd91 (24 Nov 2007)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7110557.stm

courtesy, the BBC.



> *Twin blasts 'kill 15' in Pakistan *
> 
> Two suspected suicide blasts have killed at least 15 people and injured others in the Pakistani garrison city of Rawalpindi, officials say.
> One explosion took place on a bus and the other at an army checkpoint, according to media reports.
> ...



You know, with all that has been happening, and with this here... I keep getting part of the Paper Lace song stuck into my head: 

_When a man named Al Capone, tried to make that town his own, and he called his gang to war, with the forces of the law_

Little bit of a stretch, but I think it can fit decently enough with Pakistan at the moment.

midget


----------



## MarkOttawa (25 Nov 2007)

Pivotal test of Pakistan's will against extremists
Growing violence in the northwest, where insurgents have set up an Islamist ministate, could presage a push by militants in tribal borderlands, experts say.
http://www.latimes.com/news/la-fg-swat25nov25,0,1849903,full.story?coll=la-tot-topstories


> ...
> U.S. officials are closely monitoring the situation in the northwestern district of Swat, a picturesque former princely state. Islamic militants, employing tactics used in the tribal borderlands, have overrun villages here, beheading security personnel and imposing their own harsh brand of Islamic law.
> 
> Western military observers consider the confrontation a pivotal one, possibly presaging a much wider push by Pakistani and foreign militants out of the largely lawless tribal belt along the Afghanistan border and into so-called settled areas, where Pakistan's federal government is supposed to have authority.
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (25 Nov 2007)

Let's see if this is serious (usual copyright caveats):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7112073.stm



> Pakistani troops have begun a major ground offensive against pro-Taleban militants in a former tourist resort in the North West Frontier province.
> 
> Military officials say more than 200 militants have been killed in the past week, but there is no independent confirmation of those figures.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## a_majoor (25 Nov 2007)

A bit counterintuative, and also leaves the question of how change is to be affected, but worth reading.

http://lessismore.btblogs.ca/2007/11/25/an-interesting-perspective-on-pakistan/



> *An interesting perspective on Pakistan*
> Posted by lessismore on November 25th, 2007 filed in Current Events
> 
> I had an interesting discussion with a few friends last night regarding the ongoing political crisis in Pakistan. One of them had a very different perspective on the events and what the solution should be. Not many people have supported President General Pervez Musharraf staying on as president, especially with his recent emergency measures against human rights activists, lawyers, and opposition leaders. However, the point my friend brought up is this: Pakistan possess two things, nuclear weapons and a strong, independent military. If Musharraf is thrown out as President but retains power over the military, the fate of Pakistan’s nukes (and whether or not they fall into hands of terrorism-oriented extremists) will be in limbo, balancing between the two power centres of the army and the democratically elected government.
> ...


----------



## Greymatters (27 Nov 2007)

Surprisingly, there actually is a famous ski resort in the Swat valley area... although current tourist levels are debatable.

http://www.worldisround.com/articles/12081/index.html


----------



## geo (28 Nov 2007)

Well, Musharaf has given up his position as supreme commander of everything to his commander of the Intelligence corp. wonder if that includes ISI?... cause if it does, these are the guys who have been giving us all those TB headaches over the years & that's not a good thing.

Nevertheless, I am certain that Mr Musharaf believes that he has everything under control.

Time will tell, time will tell!


----------



## JBoyd (29 Nov 2007)

Musharraf Sworn in As Pakistan President 
http://www.mail.com/Article.aspx?articlepath=APNews%5CTop%20Headlines%5C20071129%5CPakistan_20071129.xml&cat=topheadlines&subcat=&pageid=1




> Pervez Musharraf embarked on a new five-year term as Pakistan's civilian president Thursday, but he gave no indication of when emergency rule will be lifted -- a key demand of both his domestic rivals and the United States.
> 
> The inauguration ceremony came a day after he ended a four-decade military career as part of his long-delayed pledge not to serve as both president and army chief.
> 
> ...


----------

