Musharraf has made his choice, perferring power and stability over democracy and liberty. It's time for us to make ours, or suffer the consequences of hypocrisy. The situation in Pakistan is both serious and complicated, but one certainty is that enemies, allies and fence-squatters alike are watching how the United States reacts.
For many years the Bush team has made the argument that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were necessary to reverse the Cold War stategy whereby Western nations chose stability over liberty in the Middle East.
"Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe," President Bush said in November 2003, "because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty." Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice reiterated in September 2005, "For 60 years, we often thought that we could achieve stability without liberty in the Middle East. And ultimately, we got neither."
They were right then. It's time to be right now.
One understands the dilemma and contradictory view, most recently aired by Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte, that should Musharraf fall it may not bring in an era of Bhutto-led democracy, but rather empower the very Islamic fascists with whom we're at war. But given a choice in this no-win scenario, at least stay true to your founding values. We have far more to lose than a strongman in Central Asia.
Here's a related commentary from the Wall Street Journal:Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf says he imposed a state of emergency to limit terror attacks. Then why is he arresting so many nonterrorists?
Beginning Saturday, the main targets of police have been human rights workers and Mr. Musharraf's political opponents. While precise figures are hard to come by, more than 1,500 people -- mostly lawyers who participated in anti-Musharraf protests -- are thought to be incarcerated, either in their homes or in jails.
Topping the detainee list is Asma Jahangir, the Lahore-based head of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan. Ms. Jahangir, a lawyer who is also a United Nations' special rapporteur on freedom of religion, agitated publicly for an independent judiciary and has represented the families of "disappeared" political dissidents. She was placed under a 90-day "preventative" house arrest on Saturday in Lahore.
Next comes Aitzaz Ahsan, president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, a member of Parliament and a former law minister. Mr. Ahsan, who defended former Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry earlier this year when Mr. Musharraf sacked him, stood up at a press conference Saturday and denounced the state of emergency. Mr. Ahsan is now in Adiala Jail near Rawalpindi.
Then there's Ali Ahmed Kurd, another lawyer for former Chief Justice Chaudhry, who human rights groups claim is now under the supervision of the Inter-Services Intelligence agency. Other lawyers in that case, including Munir Malik and Tariq Mahmood -- both former presidents of the Supreme Court Bar -- have also been arrested.
Other detainees include Javed Hashmi, the acting president of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's party; Imran Khan, a famous cricketer and leader of a new, small political party; and hundreds of workers for Jamaat-e-Islami, a large religious party. Mr. Khan managed to give the slip to his minders at his home and is now on the run.
If Mr. Musharraf wants to fight terrorism and move Pakistan toward democracy, arresting democrats and lawyers is an odd way of doing so. By targeting members of civil society, he's weakening the very forces that would have supported him had he moved forward with a power-sharing arrangement with Benazir Bhutto. Instead, he's angering the country's middle class and empowering militants.
Labels: Afghanistan, al qaeda, bhutto, defending liberty, National Defense, pakistan
Congressional Democrats and media cronies want to have their cake and eat it too when it comes to their criticism and potential blocking of the nomination of Michael Mukasey as attorney general:The irony here is that Congress has twice had the chance to ban waterboarding, or simulated drowning, but has twice declined to do so. In both the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006, Congress only barred "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment. While some Members have said they believe waterboarding is banned by that language, when given the chance to say so specifically in a statute and be accountable for it, they refused.
As usual, Congress wants it both ways. The Members want to denounce what they call "torture," but the last thing they want is to be responsible if some future detainee knows about an imminent terrorist attack but the CIA can't get the information because Congress barred certain kinds of interrogation. So they toss their non-specific language into the lap of the executive, and say "You figure it out."
Yet they still object because the Justice Department has since tried to interpret that language by providing some practical, specific guidelines to the CIA. According to several news reports, the CIA rarely uses waterboarding but believes it can be useful against the very hardest cases.
Even better, why don't either Congress or Mukasey volunteer to be waterboarded -- akin to how military trainees are tear gassed or how police officers often are tazered during training? Glenn Reynolds points out that FOX News' Steve Harrigan volunteered for just that last year.
Another columnist whose name I forget recently -- perhaps influenced by Alan Dershowitz -- noted that some could define capital punishment, which requires an executor warrant, as torture. If that be so, perhaps the application of a waterboarding or similar act should require a warrant just as a capital punishment would. Otherwise, we're the symbol for liberty if we execute a criminal for proven capital offenses but we're a mockery of liberty if merely waterboard them? That doesn't really work for me. (And, yeah, the true blue lib would say that we should do neither).
Some would counter that torture (whether we term it that or something else) is not reliable, as people will admit to anything under pain. But will they if they know you'll come back and punish them should they admit to something they didn't do? And will the confession prove unreliable if you can validate their interrogation with that of other collaborators? The point: one cannot definitively state that torture works or that torture doesn't work. It could. But sometimes it might not.
And what is torture? Some go so far as to define the presence of barking dogs or any mental or physical discomfort as torture. This isn't some glib comment. It's an important point. No doubt waterboarding is uncomfortable, perhaps even miserable.
But is it torture if "stress positions" were legally found not to be? So, the interrogation method of "stress position" is legally acceptable, but a "stress position" with water added (i.e., waterboarding) is torture?
With what version of calculus do the lawyers extrapolate that position?
Many ask, what's the difference between us and them if we commit waterboarding? Well, for one thing, we "simulate the act of drowning," whereas they actually, you know, drown you.
What is torture? Like art, I guess you know it if you see it.
I honestly don't know what the answer is. But it's arguable that the waterboarding has worked, and that breaking terrorists bent on mass destruction will require more than just sleep deprivation or the other "five techniques." So, after 6 years of finger pointing and soapbox standing, the leaders of our respective parties better figure it all out.
Labels: Congress, democrats, intelligence, interrogation, National Defense
[Senator James] Inhofe said that American defense spending in the 20th century averaged more than 5.5 percent of GDP, dropped to 2.8 percent during the Clinton administration, and was now "hovering at around 4 percent." But Inhofe says that's not enough--"we need to be really close to where we've been in the 20th century...it's going to have to be at 5-5.5 percent of GDP." As for how we might get back to a number like that, Inhofe said "it won't be long before I'm chairing the Armed Services committee again, and I look forward to rebuilding these programs."
Labels: Economics, National Defense
