The New York Times Editorial: Pakistan’s Dictator Published: June 11, 2007
If Gen. Pervez Musharraf were the democratic leader he indignantly insists he is, he would not be so busy threatening independent news outlets, arresting hundreds of opposition politicians and berating parliamentary leaders and ministers from his own party for insufficient loyalty to his arbitrary and widely unpopular policies.
But nobody takes General Musharraf’s democratic claims seriously anymore, except for the Bush administration, which has put itself in the embarrassing position of propping up the Muslim world’s most powerful military dictator as an essential ally in its half-baked campaign to promote democracy throughout the Muslim world. Washington needs to disentangle America, quickly, from the general’s damaging embrace.
Ever since his high-handed dismissal of the country’s independent-minded chief justice in March, the general has been busily digging himself into an ever deeper political hole.
Last week, he issued a decree giving himself increased powers to shut down independent television channels, but under mounting pressure he withdrew it over the weekend. More than 300 local political leaders in Punjab were arrested in an effort to head off protests against the decree. Still, thousands of lawyers, journalists and political activists gathered to protest the firing, the censorship and the general’s continued rule. Pakistan seems to be rapidly approaching a critical turning point, with a choice between intensified repression and instability or an orderly transition back to democratic rule.
Were Washington now to begin distancing itself from the general, it would greatly encourage civic-minded Pakistanis to step up the pressure for free national elections. That’s a process the chief justice was trying to make possible when he was fired. And that is what Pakistan’s last two democratically elected leaders — Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif — are both campaigning for from abroad. The United States should be supporting these efforts, not continuing to make excuses for General Musharraf.
Pakistan has its share of violent Islamic extremists, military and civilian. But they are clearly in the minority. The best hope for diluting their political, and geopolitical, influence lies not in heating the pressure cooker of repression, but in promoting the earliest possible democratic elections.
Monday, June 11, 2007
Saturday, June 09, 2007
Stratfor on The Future Pakistani Military Leadership
Pakistan: The Future Military Leadership
June 08, 2007
Summary
For the first time since Pakistan's current political crisis began March 9, Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf acknowledged June 7 that he is in trouble. His admission that his hold on power is slipping raises significant doubts about his ability to secure a second term in the presidential election slated for the second half of September. It is too early to predict which actor will succeed him politically, but Musharraf's ability (or lack thereof) to win re-election will be a key element in shaping the Pakistani military's future.
Analysis
In a speech to lawmakers from Pakistan's ruling coalition, embattled Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf said he is worried and warned that a change in the current political order would be disastrous for the country, Pakistani media reported June 7. Musharraf accused his parliamentary allies of abandoning him in the ongoing political crisis and said he constantly receives reports about what they are saying privately. The president went on to criticize his allies for not supporting him publicly and questioned their usefulness if they are not willing to step up and defend him in the media and other public forums against criticism from the opposition.
These comments -- Musharraf's first admission of concern since the political crisis began March 9 -- show that the Musharraf regime is buckling under the weight of the crisis, which has created serious fissures within the civilian side of the hybrid Musharrafian political system. Infighting among his allies -- upon whom he depends to secure a second presidential term -- and the rapidly intensifying unrest in the country raise serious doubts about Musharraf's ability to win the next presidential election, scheduled for the second half of September. If the president cannot win re-election, he could try to impose an emergency rule of sorts, but that would only exacerbate matters.
When Musharraf cannot seek re-election, his generals likely will force him to throw in the towel, and a caretaker government, whose main task will be holding fresh parliamentary polls, will be created. It is too early to predict which political force will form the next government, since a number of elements are in play. Whatever happens to Musharraf politically, the composition of Pakistan's military -- with or without Musharraf -- is relatively easier to discern.
If Musharraf Wins Re-election
Musharraf not only wants to get re-elected as president, but he also wants to do so while holding onto the position of military chief. This is because he wants to oversee the forthcoming round of promotions and retirements in order to build the right team to ensure his hold on power -- a step that would be an absolute necessity if Musharraf later caves to domestic pressure and steps down as military chief.
The military deck is scheduled to undergo a routine reshuffle in the first week of October. The most prominent change to come is the retirement of Musharraf's two senior-most subordinates: Vice Chief of the Army Staff (VCOAS) Gen. Ahsan Saleem Hayat and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee (CJCSC) Gen. Ehsan ul-Haq. Currently, these two are the only four-star generals besides Musharraf himself. If he wins re-election in September, Musharraf's priority will be to fill the vacant positions. This process will bring to the fore younger generals, among whom there are a number of possible candidates based on merit and seniority, as well as on personal ties to Musharraf:
• Lt. Gen. Tariq Majeed: commander of the 10th Corps, who is considered to be the most capable among all the corps commanders, and who is the front-runner for the No. 2 position of VCOAS
• Lt. Gen. Ashfaq Pervez Kiyani: director-general of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and another senior general who could be appointed to the No. 3 post, the CJCSC
• Lt. Gen. Salahuddin Satti: current chief of the General Staff who, though a bit junior to other generals, could be moved to a key position
• Lt. Gen. Muhammad Yousaf: current vice chief of the General Staff, who also could be appointed to a critical position
While effecting promotions and appointments, he would want to make sure that his own position is not threatened, especially given the growing movement to oust him from power. Moreover, should he need to step down as military chief and become a civilian president, he would want the next military chief to be beholden to him. This involves not just loyalty but also the creation of dependency. Therefore, he could go beyond the top tier of generals and elevate others, such as 4th Corps Commander Lt. Gen. Shafaatullah Shah, Quarter Master General Lt. Gen. Afzal Muzaffar or 30th Corps Commander Lt. Gen. Waseem Ahmed Ashraf. Director-General of Military Intelligence Maj-Gen. Nadeem Ejaz could also become a three-star general and be made director-general of the ISI.
There is a downside to filling the top slots with second-tier commanders. These generals are inexperienced in political matters, especially in situations like the current crisis. Therefore, they are more likely to press Musharraf to step down if the existing situation escalates, especially with political forces mobilizing for the parliamentary polls slated for November.
Considering the pace and magnitude of the anti-Musharraf movement's growth, it is becoming increasingly unlikely that Musharraf can win re-election. Once Musharraf realizes that an election victory is beyond his reach, he could attempt to impose emergency rule as a means of prolonging his hold on power. This will only accelerate the unrest and lead to the point at which his generals will likely have to force him to quit.
If Musharraf is Forced to Step Down
Though he is the army chief, Musharraf has not had time to oversee the day-to-day running of the military because of his duties as a president -- especially as a president who has had to deal with an extraordinary number of domestic and foreign policy issues. As a result, Hayat has been running the military on Musharraf's behalf and could easily step into the role of military chief.
But the task of removing the increasingly unpopular Musharraf -- especially since Hayat is due to retire -- would make the process very complicated, to say the least. Furthermore, Hayat is known to be mild-mannered, which makes him unlikely to initiate Musharraf's removal. Instead, a consensus among corps commanders and certain key agency heads would be required.
This is where the other four-star general, Ehsan-ul-Haq, who has served as head of the military's two intelligence directorates, could play an important role. However, Ehsan-ul-Haq's position is ceremonial, so he does not have the authority to get the ball rolling or even secure a position in a post-Musharraf military leadership. This makes the role of the corps commanders -- who already are key because they are in command of the troops -- all the more important.
From the seniority standpoint, Majeed and Kiyani would be the key deciding players, while Satti and commander of the Mangla-based 1st Corps Lt. Gen. Sajjad Akram would be the prominent players from a logistical standpoint. At the end of the day, a consensus would be needed among the three-star generals, who likely would back Hayat to succeed Musharraf as army chief and get a three-year extension, thereby avoiding his scheduled retirement.
Hayat's first order of business as military chief would be to work with the political forces and the civilian establishment to install an acting president and caretaker government headed by an interim prime minister, which would hold parliamentary elections within 90 days. Though Hayat would not inherit Musharraf's political powers, he would be the one to oversee the reshuffle of the military deck, at which point every position aside from his own would be up for grabs. That said, those who would have played leading roles in the removal of Musharraf will be the ones most likely to assume key posts in the post-Musharraf military hierarchy.
After Musharraf's departure from the helm, regardless of how and when that happens, the military is unlikely to continue to directly run the country. Moreover, because of the assertiveness of the judiciary and the media, and an increasingly vibrant civil society, the military will have to give the civilian setup more freedom than it did in 1988, when military rule came to an end after military-chief-cum-president Mohammed Zia-ul-Haq died in a mysterious plane crash. But, for the foreseeable future, the military will continue to maintain a strong hold over the state -- partly because it is the most disciplined and professional institution in the country.
June 08, 2007
Summary
For the first time since Pakistan's current political crisis began March 9, Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf acknowledged June 7 that he is in trouble. His admission that his hold on power is slipping raises significant doubts about his ability to secure a second term in the presidential election slated for the second half of September. It is too early to predict which actor will succeed him politically, but Musharraf's ability (or lack thereof) to win re-election will be a key element in shaping the Pakistani military's future.
Analysis
In a speech to lawmakers from Pakistan's ruling coalition, embattled Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf said he is worried and warned that a change in the current political order would be disastrous for the country, Pakistani media reported June 7. Musharraf accused his parliamentary allies of abandoning him in the ongoing political crisis and said he constantly receives reports about what they are saying privately. The president went on to criticize his allies for not supporting him publicly and questioned their usefulness if they are not willing to step up and defend him in the media and other public forums against criticism from the opposition.
These comments -- Musharraf's first admission of concern since the political crisis began March 9 -- show that the Musharraf regime is buckling under the weight of the crisis, which has created serious fissures within the civilian side of the hybrid Musharrafian political system. Infighting among his allies -- upon whom he depends to secure a second presidential term -- and the rapidly intensifying unrest in the country raise serious doubts about Musharraf's ability to win the next presidential election, scheduled for the second half of September. If the president cannot win re-election, he could try to impose an emergency rule of sorts, but that would only exacerbate matters.
When Musharraf cannot seek re-election, his generals likely will force him to throw in the towel, and a caretaker government, whose main task will be holding fresh parliamentary polls, will be created. It is too early to predict which political force will form the next government, since a number of elements are in play. Whatever happens to Musharraf politically, the composition of Pakistan's military -- with or without Musharraf -- is relatively easier to discern.
If Musharraf Wins Re-election
Musharraf not only wants to get re-elected as president, but he also wants to do so while holding onto the position of military chief. This is because he wants to oversee the forthcoming round of promotions and retirements in order to build the right team to ensure his hold on power -- a step that would be an absolute necessity if Musharraf later caves to domestic pressure and steps down as military chief.
The military deck is scheduled to undergo a routine reshuffle in the first week of October. The most prominent change to come is the retirement of Musharraf's two senior-most subordinates: Vice Chief of the Army Staff (VCOAS) Gen. Ahsan Saleem Hayat and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee (CJCSC) Gen. Ehsan ul-Haq. Currently, these two are the only four-star generals besides Musharraf himself. If he wins re-election in September, Musharraf's priority will be to fill the vacant positions. This process will bring to the fore younger generals, among whom there are a number of possible candidates based on merit and seniority, as well as on personal ties to Musharraf:
• Lt. Gen. Tariq Majeed: commander of the 10th Corps, who is considered to be the most capable among all the corps commanders, and who is the front-runner for the No. 2 position of VCOAS
• Lt. Gen. Ashfaq Pervez Kiyani: director-general of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and another senior general who could be appointed to the No. 3 post, the CJCSC
• Lt. Gen. Salahuddin Satti: current chief of the General Staff who, though a bit junior to other generals, could be moved to a key position
• Lt. Gen. Muhammad Yousaf: current vice chief of the General Staff, who also could be appointed to a critical position
While effecting promotions and appointments, he would want to make sure that his own position is not threatened, especially given the growing movement to oust him from power. Moreover, should he need to step down as military chief and become a civilian president, he would want the next military chief to be beholden to him. This involves not just loyalty but also the creation of dependency. Therefore, he could go beyond the top tier of generals and elevate others, such as 4th Corps Commander Lt. Gen. Shafaatullah Shah, Quarter Master General Lt. Gen. Afzal Muzaffar or 30th Corps Commander Lt. Gen. Waseem Ahmed Ashraf. Director-General of Military Intelligence Maj-Gen. Nadeem Ejaz could also become a three-star general and be made director-general of the ISI.
There is a downside to filling the top slots with second-tier commanders. These generals are inexperienced in political matters, especially in situations like the current crisis. Therefore, they are more likely to press Musharraf to step down if the existing situation escalates, especially with political forces mobilizing for the parliamentary polls slated for November.
Considering the pace and magnitude of the anti-Musharraf movement's growth, it is becoming increasingly unlikely that Musharraf can win re-election. Once Musharraf realizes that an election victory is beyond his reach, he could attempt to impose emergency rule as a means of prolonging his hold on power. This will only accelerate the unrest and lead to the point at which his generals will likely have to force him to quit.
If Musharraf is Forced to Step Down
Though he is the army chief, Musharraf has not had time to oversee the day-to-day running of the military because of his duties as a president -- especially as a president who has had to deal with an extraordinary number of domestic and foreign policy issues. As a result, Hayat has been running the military on Musharraf's behalf and could easily step into the role of military chief.
But the task of removing the increasingly unpopular Musharraf -- especially since Hayat is due to retire -- would make the process very complicated, to say the least. Furthermore, Hayat is known to be mild-mannered, which makes him unlikely to initiate Musharraf's removal. Instead, a consensus among corps commanders and certain key agency heads would be required.
This is where the other four-star general, Ehsan-ul-Haq, who has served as head of the military's two intelligence directorates, could play an important role. However, Ehsan-ul-Haq's position is ceremonial, so he does not have the authority to get the ball rolling or even secure a position in a post-Musharraf military leadership. This makes the role of the corps commanders -- who already are key because they are in command of the troops -- all the more important.
From the seniority standpoint, Majeed and Kiyani would be the key deciding players, while Satti and commander of the Mangla-based 1st Corps Lt. Gen. Sajjad Akram would be the prominent players from a logistical standpoint. At the end of the day, a consensus would be needed among the three-star generals, who likely would back Hayat to succeed Musharraf as army chief and get a three-year extension, thereby avoiding his scheduled retirement.
Hayat's first order of business as military chief would be to work with the political forces and the civilian establishment to install an acting president and caretaker government headed by an interim prime minister, which would hold parliamentary elections within 90 days. Though Hayat would not inherit Musharraf's political powers, he would be the one to oversee the reshuffle of the military deck, at which point every position aside from his own would be up for grabs. That said, those who would have played leading roles in the removal of Musharraf will be the ones most likely to assume key posts in the post-Musharraf military hierarchy.
After Musharraf's departure from the helm, regardless of how and when that happens, the military is unlikely to continue to directly run the country. Moreover, because of the assertiveness of the judiciary and the media, and an increasingly vibrant civil society, the military will have to give the civilian setup more freedom than it did in 1988, when military rule came to an end after military-chief-cum-president Mohammed Zia-ul-Haq died in a mysterious plane crash. But, for the foreseeable future, the military will continue to maintain a strong hold over the state -- partly because it is the most disciplined and professional institution in the country.
Friday, June 08, 2007
Hollow Promises of Justice
The Faisalabad police Deputy Inspector General (DIG) admits in the court thatHafiz Abdul Basit was arrested by his force in January 2004, and after taking his statement he was handed over to Captain Amir of Military Intelligence.
Then Hafiz Abdul Basit's uncle, Hafiz Abdul Nasir submits an affidavit in the Supreme Court stating that he himself was abducted by army and put in detention with his nephew to put pressure on the ‘detainee’ (Hafiz Abdul Basit) whom he found in critical condition.
But when on Wednesday the Supreme Court bench, comprising of Justice Javed Iqbal, Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar and Justice Falak Sher taking up petitions, for the recovery of ‘missing’ persons, of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) and former senator Farhatullah Babar and complaints of Amina Masood Janjua and others, orders that Hafiz Abdul Basit be produced in the court the National Crisis Management Cell (NCMC) Director Colonel Javed Iqbal Lodhi insists that the he and his NCMC have no information about Mr Basit.
Justice Javed Iqbal then orders that either Mr Basit be produced in the court or the authorities concerned rebut the claim on oath.
Deputy Attorney-General Tariq Mehmood Khokhar informs the court, however, that four more missing persons had been "traced".
DAG said Sher Ahmed Khan and Mohammad Jan had been found in the custody of Dera Ismail Khan police for their alleged involvement in a bomb blast case.
Afzal Dilbar and Shabbir Tararau had reached their homes. (From where he does not say; and the judges do not ask.)
According to DAG's latest statement out of 254 missing persons on the list 102 had been located. 152 were still "missing".
But Justice Javed Iqbal assures the families that the case would be taken to its logical conclusion and legal action would be taken against those responsible, regardless of their official status.
“No one is above the law. Legal action will be taken irrespective of who is who. And what I am saying, I mean it. If someone feels that he is above the law, he is committing a mistake. Let your superior know that we are very serious about this case,” Justice Javed Iqbal observed while giving directions to the NCMC representative.
The judge asked the NCMC director under which law had the people been picked up, detained and then released.
Then the judge give a nice piece of advice to the abductors: “There are a number of statutory laws to proceed against any person. Why don’t you adopt those provisions”.
Then he gives just a glimpse of the tragic and grave situation of the abuse of human rights in Pakistan at the hands of military government: “I receive 10 to 15 letters of complaints daily, mostly from Balochistan, regarding enforced disappearances”.
The court took suo moto notice of fresh ‘disappearances’ of Shah Zain Bugti, grandson of the late Baloch leader Akbar Bugti; Ghulam Qadir and Khan Mohammad. The latter two were picked up from Gaddap in Karachi on April 16, while Ali Asghar Menagalzai was taken away from Quetta.
The case of a 12-year-old girl, Sherry, whose father Abdul Wahid is reported to have been picked up by intelligence agencies from Makran on March 14, will also be taken up during the next hearing on June 20.
Advocate Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui told the court that most cases of disappearances belonged to Balochistan. Even the district nazim of Dera Bugti had been picked up, he said.
Former senator Babar urged the court to obtain affidavits from the heads of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and the MI about the missing persons.
Advocate Dr Babar Awan said the federal information minister, interior minister and the ISPR director-general had confirmed the arrest of a wanted man, Naeem Noor Khan, but he was still in the category of ‘missing’ persons and his whereabouts were not known.
Justice Javed Iqbal assured the families of the missing persons that action would be taken at the inspector-general and secretary level, and constables or SHOs would not be made scapegoat.
Amina Janjua filed an affidavit, stating that five released men told her that they had seen her husband Masood Janjua in different detention cells of the ISI, including the army-run 501 Workshop in Rawalpindi cantonment. The court directed the DAG to verify the contents of the affidavit and submit a report, with the observation that “the 501 Workshop is not out of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.”
Then Hafiz Abdul Basit's uncle, Hafiz Abdul Nasir submits an affidavit in the Supreme Court stating that he himself was abducted by army and put in detention with his nephew to put pressure on the ‘detainee’ (Hafiz Abdul Basit) whom he found in critical condition.
But when on Wednesday the Supreme Court bench, comprising of Justice Javed Iqbal, Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar and Justice Falak Sher taking up petitions, for the recovery of ‘missing’ persons, of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) and former senator Farhatullah Babar and complaints of Amina Masood Janjua and others, orders that Hafiz Abdul Basit be produced in the court the National Crisis Management Cell (NCMC) Director Colonel Javed Iqbal Lodhi insists that the he and his NCMC have no information about Mr Basit.
Justice Javed Iqbal then orders that either Mr Basit be produced in the court or the authorities concerned rebut the claim on oath.
Deputy Attorney-General Tariq Mehmood Khokhar informs the court, however, that four more missing persons had been "traced".
DAG said Sher Ahmed Khan and Mohammad Jan had been found in the custody of Dera Ismail Khan police for their alleged involvement in a bomb blast case.
Afzal Dilbar and Shabbir Tararau had reached their homes. (From where he does not say; and the judges do not ask.)
According to DAG's latest statement out of 254 missing persons on the list 102 had been located. 152 were still "missing".
But Justice Javed Iqbal assures the families that the case would be taken to its logical conclusion and legal action would be taken against those responsible, regardless of their official status.
“No one is above the law. Legal action will be taken irrespective of who is who. And what I am saying, I mean it. If someone feels that he is above the law, he is committing a mistake. Let your superior know that we are very serious about this case,” Justice Javed Iqbal observed while giving directions to the NCMC representative.
The judge asked the NCMC director under which law had the people been picked up, detained and then released.
Then the judge give a nice piece of advice to the abductors: “There are a number of statutory laws to proceed against any person. Why don’t you adopt those provisions”.
Then he gives just a glimpse of the tragic and grave situation of the abuse of human rights in Pakistan at the hands of military government: “I receive 10 to 15 letters of complaints daily, mostly from Balochistan, regarding enforced disappearances”.
The court took suo moto notice of fresh ‘disappearances’ of Shah Zain Bugti, grandson of the late Baloch leader Akbar Bugti; Ghulam Qadir and Khan Mohammad. The latter two were picked up from Gaddap in Karachi on April 16, while Ali Asghar Menagalzai was taken away from Quetta.
The case of a 12-year-old girl, Sherry, whose father Abdul Wahid is reported to have been picked up by intelligence agencies from Makran on March 14, will also be taken up during the next hearing on June 20.
Advocate Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui told the court that most cases of disappearances belonged to Balochistan. Even the district nazim of Dera Bugti had been picked up, he said.
Former senator Babar urged the court to obtain affidavits from the heads of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and the MI about the missing persons.
Advocate Dr Babar Awan said the federal information minister, interior minister and the ISPR director-general had confirmed the arrest of a wanted man, Naeem Noor Khan, but he was still in the category of ‘missing’ persons and his whereabouts were not known.
Justice Javed Iqbal assured the families of the missing persons that action would be taken at the inspector-general and secretary level, and constables or SHOs would not be made scapegoat.
Amina Janjua filed an affidavit, stating that five released men told her that they had seen her husband Masood Janjua in different detention cells of the ISI, including the army-run 501 Workshop in Rawalpindi cantonment. The court directed the DAG to verify the contents of the affidavit and submit a report, with the observation that “the 501 Workshop is not out of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.”
NYT Enforced Disappearances
Rights Groups Call for End to Secret Detentions June 7, 2007
By SCOTT SHANE
WASHINGTON, June 6 — Six human rights groups on Wednesday released a list of 39 people they believe have been secretly imprisoned by the United States and whose whereabouts are unknown, calling on the Bush administration to abandon such detentions.
The list, compiled from news media reports, interviews and government documents, includes terrorism suspects and those thought to have ties to militant groups. In some suspects’ cases, officials acknowledge that they were at one time in United States custody. In others, the rights groups say, there is other evidence, sometimes sketchy, that they had at least once been in American hands.
The list includes, for instance, Hassan Ghul, a Pakistani who is accused of being a member of Al Qaeda and whose capture in northern Iraq in January 2004 was announced by President Bush. At the other extreme, two unnamed Somali nationals are on the list because they were overheard in 2005 by another prisoner who was later released, Marwan Jabour, in the cell next to his at a secret American detention center, possibly in Afghanistan.
Meg Satterthwaite, of the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice at New York University, one of the six groups, said the recent American practice mimiced “disappearances” of political opponents under Latin American dictators. “Enforced disappearances are illegal, regardless of who carries them out,” she said.
The other groups that compiled the list were Amnesty International, the Center for Constitutional Rights, Human Rights Watch and two British groups, Reprieve and Cageprisoners. Three of the groups are suing under the Freedom of Information Act to learn what became of the prisoners.
The Bush administration has defended secretly detaining some suspects as a necessity of the fight against terrorism because officials do not want to tip off terrorist groups that their operatives are in custody. They say the comparison with past Latin American regimes is unfair, because those seized by the Americans are not killed and their whereabouts will eventually be revealed.
A Central Intelligence Agency spokesman, Paul Gimigliano, would not comment on the names on the list. But he said “there is no shortage of myth about what the C.I.A. has done to fight terror.”
“The plain truth is that we act in strict accord with American law,” he said, adding that the agency’s actions “have been very effective in disrupting plots and saving lives.”
In a reminder that the handling of captured terrorism suspects remains a pressing issue, Pentagon officials said Wednesday that a courier linking terrorist cells in the Horn of Africa and Al Qaeda officials in Pakistan was captured recently in East Africa and transported this week to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, said the detainee, Abdullahi Sudi Arale, was suspected of providing terrorist cells in East Africa with explosives and weapons. He traveled from Pakistan to Somalia in September 2006 and held a leadership role in the Islamic Courts Council, which held power in part of Somalia until earlier this year, according to a Pentagon statement.
“We believe him to be an extremely dangerous member of the Al Qaeda network,” Mr. Whitman said. But he said Mr. Arale, whose age and nationality were not released, would not be part of the “high value” group in the Guantánamo prisoner population of about 385.
Even before the secret detentions were officially confirmed, the practice drew widespread objections, including from within the Bush administration. William H. Taft IV, legal adviser at the State Department from 2001 to 2005, opposed it while in office and on Wednesday said he had not changed his view.
“I believe the United States should always account for people in its custody,” said Mr. Taft, who had not reviewed the human rights groups’ report. “When our own people are missing, we want to be able to insist on an accounting from their captors,” Mr. Taft said. He added that keeping prisoners secret could tempt their jailers to abuse them and to cover up their deaths in custody.
In September, President Bush for the first time officially acknowledged the C.I.A.’s secret overseas detentions, saying that the 14 prisoners then in the agency’s hands had been moved to Guantánamo. A 15th so-called high-level prisoner, an Iraqi Kurd named Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi, alleged to be a top aide to Osama bin Laden, was moved to Guantánamo in April after being held secretly by the C.I.A. for several months.
Mohammad Khan, 31, a Pakistani banker who was held in secret in Pakistan and questioned by Americans for 56 days in 2003, described the experience in an interview from Karachi on Wednesday. Mr. Khan’s brother, Majid Khan, who was arrested along with him but held in secret C.I.A. custody for the next three years, is among the high-level prisoners at Guantánamo. He is accused of plotting to blow up gas stations in the United States and planning other terrorist acts, charges his brother said he denies.
After their imprisonment, “Our family members had no idea where we were,” Mr. Khan said. He said his brother was questioned by Americans for up to eight hours while confined to a small chair and eventually signed false confessions.
Later, Mr. Khan said, he and other family members, including some who live in the Baltimore area, believed for a time that Majid Khan was dead and learned of his whereabouts only from President Bush’s September speech.
“How can there be any justification for this?” Mr. Khan said. “You can’t kidnap people and hold them somewhere in the world and torture them.”
Sunday, June 03, 2007
Constitutional Duties of the Armed Forces of Pakistan
In the Constitution of Pakistan the Armed Forces have been dealt with in PART XII, appropriately headed: Miscellaneous. It happens to be the last part of our Constitution, just before annex, schedules and amendments.
It is Chapter 2 of this Part that specifically deals with the Armed Forces.
Under Article 243 the Constitution clearly states that the Command of Armed Forces shall be in the civilian hands.
243. Command of Armed Forces.
"(1) The Federal Government shall have control and command of the Armed Forces."
...
Under Article 244 the Constitution makes very clear that every member of the Armed Forces shall take an oath prescribed in the Third Schedule. This oath, too, happens to be the last oath in this schedule.
244. Oath of Armed Forces.
"Every member of the Armed Forces shall make oath in the form set out in the Third Schedule."
THIRD SCHEDULE
Oaths of Office
Members Of The Armed Forces [Article 244]
Here is the oath every member of the Armed Forces take in which every single member says that he will NOT engage himself in any political activities WHATSOEVER.
"(In the name of Allah, the most Beneficent, the most Merciful.)
I, ____________, do solemnly swear that I will bear true faith and allegiance to Pakistan and uphold the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan which embodies the will of the people, that I will not engage myself in any political activities whatsoever and that I will honestly and faithfully serve Pakistan in the Pakistan Army (or Navy or Air Force) as required by and under the law.
May Allah Almighty help and guide me (A'meen)."
...
Now let me ask General Musharraf and his Corps Commanders that if they solemnly took this oath? Have they not gone against their oath by engaging in the political activities?
It is them, and no one else, who are a "small minority" of "obstructionist forces" and anti-State "opportunists" that have waged a "malicious campaign" of "serving their vested interests and agenda by flouting the rule of law".
Go back to your constitutional duties of defending the countries and keeping your oath and let civilians run the country and obey them.
It is Chapter 2 of this Part that specifically deals with the Armed Forces.
Under Article 243 the Constitution clearly states that the Command of Armed Forces shall be in the civilian hands.
243. Command of Armed Forces.
"(1) The Federal Government shall have control and command of the Armed Forces."
...
Under Article 244 the Constitution makes very clear that every member of the Armed Forces shall take an oath prescribed in the Third Schedule. This oath, too, happens to be the last oath in this schedule.
244. Oath of Armed Forces.
"Every member of the Armed Forces shall make oath in the form set out in the Third Schedule."
THIRD SCHEDULE
Oaths of Office
Members Of The Armed Forces [Article 244]
Here is the oath every member of the Armed Forces take in which every single member says that he will NOT engage himself in any political activities WHATSOEVER.
"(In the name of Allah, the most Beneficent, the most Merciful.)
I, ____________, do solemnly swear that I will bear true faith and allegiance to Pakistan and uphold the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan which embodies the will of the people, that I will not engage myself in any political activities whatsoever and that I will honestly and faithfully serve Pakistan in the Pakistan Army (or Navy or Air Force) as required by and under the law.
May Allah Almighty help and guide me (A'meen)."
...
Now let me ask General Musharraf and his Corps Commanders that if they solemnly took this oath? Have they not gone against their oath by engaging in the political activities?
It is them, and no one else, who are a "small minority" of "obstructionist forces" and anti-State "opportunists" that have waged a "malicious campaign" of "serving their vested interests and agenda by flouting the rule of law".
Go back to your constitutional duties of defending the countries and keeping your oath and let civilians run the country and obey them.
Who are obstructionist forces of a small minority?
Looks like General Musharraf has finally seen the writing on the wall. But he has taken the wrong message from it.
In the face of growing storm of judicial crisis, instaed of calling for a retreat by taking the reference back, he has drawn his last weapon, the army, and has pushed it into the last fight of his life - that could turn out to be his Waterloo in the best of scenarios. But it could also plunge Pakistan into the hell pit of a civil war.
On Friday, he called the meeting of the corps commanders and principal staff officers ahead of schedule. And in a highly unusual fasion asked the Inter Services Public Relations office to release a press statement after the meeting. The statement says that the participants "reviewed internal situation in the country" and "the Commanders noted the positive developments in the field of socio-economic progress, and the efforts being made to promote tolerance and moderation in the society" and "strongly reaffirmed Pakistan Army’s support for continuity of Government’s policies, both internal and external. The participants reiterated support for the pivotal role of the President and the COAS in the ongoing reform process". They "took serious note of the malicious campaign against Institutions of State, launched by vested interests and opportunists who were acting as obstructionist forces to serve their personal interests and agenda even at the cost of flouting the rule of law".
They also "affirmed to stand committed for the security of their country under the leadership and guidance of the President and the COAS". They warned that they "any attempt by a small minority to obstruct the aspirations of vast majority would only derail the nation from its path of progress and prosperity. The Pakistan Army is committed to lend full support towards realization of the vision set by the President for a dynamic, progressive and moderate Islamic State".
At the end the statement says that "the President appreciated unstinted support of the participants and assured them that nobody will be allowed to bring instability in the country".
The question is who are these "obstructionist forces", "a small minority" of "vested interests" and of "opportunists" who have waged a "malicious campaign against Institutions of State" ... "to serve their personal interests and agenda even at the cost of flouting the rule of law"?
Army itself is that small minority which has, for the last 60 years, proven to be an obstructionist force that has been hell bent to serve its personal interests and agenda while flouting the rule of law by committing the high treason of abrogating the Constitution of Pakistan over and over again and forgetting its assigned duties. It is the army and its top commanders who always waged a milicious campaign against all other institutions of state.
Since when number 9 (# of corps commanders) has grown bigger than 100's (number of members of the parliament)? What system of counting the cammoanders have used to show 500,000 (# of military personnel) is greater than 169,500,000 (# of Pakistanis)?
General Musharraf has thrown his last weapon into the fray. It is a dangerous and reckless move. It won't be long before this policy of involving the army as a party into Pakistani people's struggle for rule of law, and respect for human rights will fling Pakistan into a civil war.
But I don't believe there is any other recourse for the people to get their fundamental and natural rights back from the clutches of the military rule but through a civil war in which they are being pushed by the greed and lust of Generals.
In the face of growing storm of judicial crisis, instaed of calling for a retreat by taking the reference back, he has drawn his last weapon, the army, and has pushed it into the last fight of his life - that could turn out to be his Waterloo in the best of scenarios. But it could also plunge Pakistan into the hell pit of a civil war.
On Friday, he called the meeting of the corps commanders and principal staff officers ahead of schedule. And in a highly unusual fasion asked the Inter Services Public Relations office to release a press statement after the meeting. The statement says that the participants "reviewed internal situation in the country" and "the Commanders noted the positive developments in the field of socio-economic progress, and the efforts being made to promote tolerance and moderation in the society" and "strongly reaffirmed Pakistan Army’s support for continuity of Government’s policies, both internal and external. The participants reiterated support for the pivotal role of the President and the COAS in the ongoing reform process". They "took serious note of the malicious campaign against Institutions of State, launched by vested interests and opportunists who were acting as obstructionist forces to serve their personal interests and agenda even at the cost of flouting the rule of law".
They also "affirmed to stand committed for the security of their country under the leadership and guidance of the President and the COAS". They warned that they "any attempt by a small minority to obstruct the aspirations of vast majority would only derail the nation from its path of progress and prosperity. The Pakistan Army is committed to lend full support towards realization of the vision set by the President for a dynamic, progressive and moderate Islamic State".
At the end the statement says that "the President appreciated unstinted support of the participants and assured them that nobody will be allowed to bring instability in the country".
The question is who are these "obstructionist forces", "a small minority" of "vested interests" and of "opportunists" who have waged a "malicious campaign against Institutions of State" ... "to serve their personal interests and agenda even at the cost of flouting the rule of law"?
Army itself is that small minority which has, for the last 60 years, proven to be an obstructionist force that has been hell bent to serve its personal interests and agenda while flouting the rule of law by committing the high treason of abrogating the Constitution of Pakistan over and over again and forgetting its assigned duties. It is the army and its top commanders who always waged a milicious campaign against all other institutions of state.
Since when number 9 (# of corps commanders) has grown bigger than 100's (number of members of the parliament)? What system of counting the cammoanders have used to show 500,000 (# of military personnel) is greater than 169,500,000 (# of Pakistanis)?
General Musharraf has thrown his last weapon into the fray. It is a dangerous and reckless move. It won't be long before this policy of involving the army as a party into Pakistani people's struggle for rule of law, and respect for human rights will fling Pakistan into a civil war.
But I don't believe there is any other recourse for the people to get their fundamental and natural rights back from the clutches of the military rule but through a civil war in which they are being pushed by the greed and lust of Generals.
Monday, May 28, 2007
NYT Editorial : Bush Propping up increasingly unpopular Musharraf
May 23, 2007
NYT Editorial
Propping Up the General
It seems the more unpopular Pakistan’s military dictator, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, becomes at home and the less he is willing to fight the Taliban, the more the Bush administration clings to him.
Washington is afraid, and entirely not without reason, that nuclear armed Pakistan’s next ruler could be even worse. The answer is not to stand by while the general cranks up his repression. That only feeds the fundamentalist and anti-American passions that Washington fears.
Instead of propping up the general, Washington should use the leverage it gets from roughly $2 billion a year in aid to encourage an early return to democratic rule.
Since Sept. 11, 2001, the United States has been paying about half that amount each year to reimburse Pakistan’s military for fighting Taliban and Al Qaeda forces along the Afghan border. Eight months ago, General Musharraf radically pared back those efforts, but the lavish American payments have continued. Cutting back on those patrols makes it easier for the Taliban and Al Qaeda to kill American and NATO troops. Congress must insist that future payments be linked to actual counterterrorist activity and results, as some American military officials now recommend.
Washington’s uncritical support has also reinforced the general’s arrogance and insularity, which are at the heart of his current political problems. In March, he arbitrarily suspended Pakistan’s independent-minded chief justice, setting off protest demonstrations which have continued ever since. The suspension came as the court was preparing to hear challenges to the general’s schemes to keep himself in power — as both army commander and president — with his presidential candidacy ratified by the current, submissive Parliament, not the new one due to be elected later this year.
Members of the general’s ruling party are now urging him to reach a compromise. Some are even calling on him to open up the election to other serious contenders, including two former prime ministers, Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, now living in exile. Both governments were badly stained with corruption. But there can be no meaningful return to democracy without the free participation of Pakistan’s two most popular political leaders. General Musharraf is resisting this good advice, but could change his mind if Washington added its voice to the call for free elections.
A succession of uniformed dictators has misruled Pakistan for more than half of its 60-year history. All have advertised themselves as great friends of Washington, but all have fanned extremism while discrediting America’s reputation among ordinary Pakistanis. There is no security with General Musharraf. The United States belongs on the side of Pakistani democracy.
NYT Editorial
Propping Up the General
It seems the more unpopular Pakistan’s military dictator, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, becomes at home and the less he is willing to fight the Taliban, the more the Bush administration clings to him.
Washington is afraid, and entirely not without reason, that nuclear armed Pakistan’s next ruler could be even worse. The answer is not to stand by while the general cranks up his repression. That only feeds the fundamentalist and anti-American passions that Washington fears.
Instead of propping up the general, Washington should use the leverage it gets from roughly $2 billion a year in aid to encourage an early return to democratic rule.
Since Sept. 11, 2001, the United States has been paying about half that amount each year to reimburse Pakistan’s military for fighting Taliban and Al Qaeda forces along the Afghan border. Eight months ago, General Musharraf radically pared back those efforts, but the lavish American payments have continued. Cutting back on those patrols makes it easier for the Taliban and Al Qaeda to kill American and NATO troops. Congress must insist that future payments be linked to actual counterterrorist activity and results, as some American military officials now recommend.
Washington’s uncritical support has also reinforced the general’s arrogance and insularity, which are at the heart of his current political problems. In March, he arbitrarily suspended Pakistan’s independent-minded chief justice, setting off protest demonstrations which have continued ever since. The suspension came as the court was preparing to hear challenges to the general’s schemes to keep himself in power — as both army commander and president — with his presidential candidacy ratified by the current, submissive Parliament, not the new one due to be elected later this year.
Members of the general’s ruling party are now urging him to reach a compromise. Some are even calling on him to open up the election to other serious contenders, including two former prime ministers, Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, now living in exile. Both governments were badly stained with corruption. But there can be no meaningful return to democracy without the free participation of Pakistan’s two most popular political leaders. General Musharraf is resisting this good advice, but could change his mind if Washington added its voice to the call for free elections.
A succession of uniformed dictators has misruled Pakistan for more than half of its 60-year history. All have advertised themselves as great friends of Washington, but all have fanned extremism while discrediting America’s reputation among ordinary Pakistanis. There is no security with General Musharraf. The United States belongs on the side of Pakistani democracy.
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Dead Man's Affidavit
Justice Javed Iqbal chairing the three-member bench of the Supreme Court ordered Interior Ministry to submit affidavits about the 56 missing people who were traced by the ministry last week. The affidavits must include details regarding the date and place of abduction; duration and place of detention; and charges levelled against recovered people. These 56 are out of Human Rights Commission of Pakistan's list of 136 missing Pakistanis.
I wonder how the ministry would comply with this court orders for Saud Memon, a 44 years old textile merchant of Karachi, and father of five kids. His shrunken and shriveled body, weighing only 40 pounds, was dumped near his house by the intelligence agencies on April 28, 2007, after confining him for 4 years, 1 month and 21 days.
On court orders he was produced in the Supreme Court on May 14, 2007. He was unable to walk so he was brought in on a wheelchair by his brother, Mahmood Memon.
He was unable to speak or hold his head so his brother spoke for him and pleaded with justices that Saud's name should be removed from the ‘Red Book’ compiled by the Interior Ministry, which contains the names the people wanted by the government. The head money set for Saud is Rs 3 million. Justice Javed Iqbal ordered: “Saud Memon should not be arrested without approval of this court.”
He had lost all his memory as a result of torture at the hands of intelligence agencies. The court was shocked and alarmed to see his condition and ordered the newly appointed Deputy Attorney General Barrister Tariq Khokhar to have him treated at Agha Khan Hospital and his medical report presented to the court.
But Saud Memon died on Friday, May 18 at the Liaquat National Hospital in Karachi. Hospital authorities said he died of tuberculosis and meningitis. His family claims he was poisoned while in detention.
He went missing on March 7, 2003. He was arrested from South Africa by FBI, kept at Guantanamo Bay until 2006 when he was handed over to Pakistani agencies. The family heard about his alleged detention last year through a man who was released by the same agency sometime ago. According to Amina Masood Janjua, it was confirmed by three other persons released from ISI’s detention that Saud Memon was with them in ISI custody.
Saud owned the shed and land in Ahsanabad, Gadap Town, Karachi, where body of Daniel Pearl, a reporter for the Wall Street Journal, was found in a shallow grave on May 17, 2002 after his kidnapping and beheading in January 2002. Pakistani authorities said at the time they wanted to question Mr Memon but that they could not find him. They never acknowledged his detention either. But earlier this month when Supreme Court, which is investigating "disappearances" of terror suspects, started asking questions about his disappearance and agencies possible involvement in it, he was dumped near his house.
His family denies he had anything to do with the murder. British-born Ahmed Omar Sheikh was sentenced to death for the murder of Daniel Pearl, while three other men were given life imprisonment. In March, alleged al-Qaeda mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed confessed to personally beheading Pearl, according to an incomplete Pentagon transcript of his testimony at a military tribunal.
I wonder how the ministry would comply with this court orders for Saud Memon, a 44 years old textile merchant of Karachi, and father of five kids. His shrunken and shriveled body, weighing only 40 pounds, was dumped near his house by the intelligence agencies on April 28, 2007, after confining him for 4 years, 1 month and 21 days.
On court orders he was produced in the Supreme Court on May 14, 2007. He was unable to walk so he was brought in on a wheelchair by his brother, Mahmood Memon.
He was unable to speak or hold his head so his brother spoke for him and pleaded with justices that Saud's name should be removed from the ‘Red Book’ compiled by the Interior Ministry, which contains the names the people wanted by the government. The head money set for Saud is Rs 3 million. Justice Javed Iqbal ordered: “Saud Memon should not be arrested without approval of this court.”
He had lost all his memory as a result of torture at the hands of intelligence agencies. The court was shocked and alarmed to see his condition and ordered the newly appointed Deputy Attorney General Barrister Tariq Khokhar to have him treated at Agha Khan Hospital and his medical report presented to the court.
But Saud Memon died on Friday, May 18 at the Liaquat National Hospital in Karachi. Hospital authorities said he died of tuberculosis and meningitis. His family claims he was poisoned while in detention.
He went missing on March 7, 2003. He was arrested from South Africa by FBI, kept at Guantanamo Bay until 2006 when he was handed over to Pakistani agencies. The family heard about his alleged detention last year through a man who was released by the same agency sometime ago. According to Amina Masood Janjua, it was confirmed by three other persons released from ISI’s detention that Saud Memon was with them in ISI custody.
Saud owned the shed and land in Ahsanabad, Gadap Town, Karachi, where body of Daniel Pearl, a reporter for the Wall Street Journal, was found in a shallow grave on May 17, 2002 after his kidnapping and beheading in January 2002. Pakistani authorities said at the time they wanted to question Mr Memon but that they could not find him. They never acknowledged his detention either. But earlier this month when Supreme Court, which is investigating "disappearances" of terror suspects, started asking questions about his disappearance and agencies possible involvement in it, he was dumped near his house.
His family denies he had anything to do with the murder. British-born Ahmed Omar Sheikh was sentenced to death for the murder of Daniel Pearl, while three other men were given life imprisonment. In March, alleged al-Qaeda mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed confessed to personally beheading Pearl, according to an incomplete Pentagon transcript of his testimony at a military tribunal.
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Sunday, May 06, 2007
Not Traceable
This absurd drama plays every so agten with a bizzar consistency. Judges take their seats sheepishly; victim families wait anxiously; officials report nonchalantly; judges give some wishy-washy orders and another date; court is adjourned; vistim families go back to their miserable lives. This is missing persons' drama taht is played out elaborately in Pakistan's Supreme Court.
Same ritual next time.
This time the Deputy Attorney General presented the concise report on behalf of National Crisis Management Cell concerning those seven people the court had inquired in its last hearing on April 27.
According to the findings of NCMC, Faisal Faraz is not traceable.
In other words, even though the Cell admits that disappearance of Pakistanis at the hands of intelligence agencies is National Crisis but it cannot manage it. Or it can manage it the only way it is adept at: by telling lies and concealing the truth.
Faisal Faraz, a mechanical engineer from Lahore, was abducted from Rawalpindi Daewoo Bus Stop on July 30, 2005. He was with Masood Janjua. Masood is also missing since.
Justice Javed Iqbal asked the representative of the NCMC of Interior Ministry, Colonel (who else?) Imran: “Are you denying that he was picked up".
Col. Imran: “We don’t have him and we have contacted all the agencies. We are still making efforts.”
Justice Iqbal qasked him about the efforts NCMC has made in recovering Faisal Faraz and others missing people. The paper does not report what did Colonel Imran say.
Justice Iqbal instructed Col. Imran that all missing persons have to be traced out and that the law does not give any right to any government department to abduct people unlawfully and whosoever exercises such powers, will have to be answerable before the Supreme Court.
“Legal action will be taken regardless of who is who,” said Justice Javed Iqbal.
When families and lawyers of the insisted then Col. Imran told the judge that most of the information about the missing people cannot be revealed.
Justice Javed Iqbal told Col Imran that any sensitive information can be revealed in his chamber. The paper does not say if "sensitive information" was revealed in the chamber of hte judge or not.
But Justice Iqbal assured the families that legal action would be taken.
About Imran Munir, 35, the Col. Imran's report disclosed that he is in military’s detention on charges of spying for a foreign country. Imran Munir went missing on July 8th, 2006.
According to his sister, he was "invited" by Brig Mansoor to a dinner in Blue Area, Islamabad. He never came back home. He worked in Malaysia and was on a visit to Pakistan for 2 weeks.
His family was never informed about his whereabouts, his detention, or any charges against him.
After the Supreme Court inquiries during hearings, on April 27, his whereabouts have finally been revealed.
The Supreme Court directed the NCMC to present the charge sheet against Imran Munir in the court and to make arrangements for Imran’s meeting with his family.
How about Attiqur Rehman? The DAG told the court, “He is untraceable” too.
Attiq’s lawyer, Ikram Chaudhry, on the other hand told the bench that DIG and SP Abbottabad had told his client’s family members that he had been picked up by the agencies.
Justice Javed Iqbal summoned IG NWFP and SP Abbotabad to appear beforwe the Supreme Court on the next hearing on May 11, 2007.
Qari Saifullah Akhtar. The concise report presented by the National Crisis Management cell, revealed: “He is engaged in jihadi activities somewhere in Punjab.” (How do they know? And where is that 'somewhere'?)
Qari Saifullah’s lawyer, Hashmat Habib told the bench that government is aware of the whereabouts of Qari Saifullah since he was handed over to the Pakistani government by the UAE authorities on August 8, 2004.
He substantiated his statement by narrating NCMC’s Director General Javed Iqbal Cheema’s interview to a newspaper on August 9, 2004; saying, “Qari Saifullah is in custody of law enforcement agencies and Pakistani agencies are interrogating him.”
The then Information Minister, Sheikh Rashid’s statements given in August 2004 also confirmed that Qari Saifullah was in government’s detention.
After listening to the arguments given by both the sides, Justice Javed Iqbal ordered that a specific report about Qari Saifullah be furnished in the next hearing.
Naeem Noor Khan. According to the NCMC he is also not traceable either. Whereas in August 2004, government acknowledged his arrest. Sheikh Rashid, the then Information Minister , and Faisal Saleh Hayat, the then Interior Minister, and Shaukat Sultan, the then DG ISPR, all confirmed Naeem Noor Khan’s arrest in a press conference in August 2004.
On Supreme Court orders in the last hearing, the Interior Ministry had appointed Col Javed Iqbal Lodhi as deputy secretary to be accessible to the families of the missing people and to arrange their meetings with the detainees and also obtain necessary information regarding missing people.
Justice Javed Iqbal further ordered the deputy secretary to make his telephone numbers known so concerned people could contact him.
Qari Obaidullah was arrested from his house in Multan on November 26, 2003 by elite unit of armed forces accompanied by the agents in civilian clothes. But the armed forces never informed Qari Obaidullah’s family about his detention and they have not met him in four years. His wife had filed a petition in Lahore High Court's Rawalpindi Bench.
The Deputy Attorney General appeared in the court and stated, “Obaidullah was in the custody of the Armed Forces of Pakistan and was required in connection with a case under Section 2(d) of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952.”
The bench directed the Deputy Attorney General to make meeting arrangements of Qari Obaidullah with his family.
All the families of missing people expressed their fears before the bench that their loved ones could also be meted out the same treatment as Saud Memon was subjected to.
Saud was dumped near his home in Karachi on April 28, 2007 in a vegetative state. He is not able to speak, walk or hold his head on his own. This 44 years old man weighs only 44 pound (18 kilogram).
Justice Javed Iqbal ordered the Deputy Attorney General to inform the court about Muhammad Idrees Abbasi’s whereabouts and present a concise report in the court on the next hearing due on May 11, 2007.
Same ritual next time.
This time the Deputy Attorney General presented the concise report on behalf of National Crisis Management Cell concerning those seven people the court had inquired in its last hearing on April 27.
According to the findings of NCMC, Faisal Faraz is not traceable.
In other words, even though the Cell admits that disappearance of Pakistanis at the hands of intelligence agencies is National Crisis but it cannot manage it. Or it can manage it the only way it is adept at: by telling lies and concealing the truth.
Faisal Faraz, a mechanical engineer from Lahore, was abducted from Rawalpindi Daewoo Bus Stop on July 30, 2005. He was with Masood Janjua. Masood is also missing since.
Justice Javed Iqbal asked the representative of the NCMC of Interior Ministry, Colonel (who else?) Imran: “Are you denying that he was picked up".
Col. Imran: “We don’t have him and we have contacted all the agencies. We are still making efforts.”
Justice Iqbal qasked him about the efforts NCMC has made in recovering Faisal Faraz and others missing people. The paper does not report what did Colonel Imran say.
Justice Iqbal instructed Col. Imran that all missing persons have to be traced out and that the law does not give any right to any government department to abduct people unlawfully and whosoever exercises such powers, will have to be answerable before the Supreme Court.
“Legal action will be taken regardless of who is who,” said Justice Javed Iqbal.
When families and lawyers of the insisted then Col. Imran told the judge that most of the information about the missing people cannot be revealed.
Justice Javed Iqbal told Col Imran that any sensitive information can be revealed in his chamber. The paper does not say if "sensitive information" was revealed in the chamber of hte judge or not.
But Justice Iqbal assured the families that legal action would be taken.
About Imran Munir, 35, the Col. Imran's report disclosed that he is in military’s detention on charges of spying for a foreign country. Imran Munir went missing on July 8th, 2006.
According to his sister, he was "invited" by Brig Mansoor to a dinner in Blue Area, Islamabad. He never came back home. He worked in Malaysia and was on a visit to Pakistan for 2 weeks.
His family was never informed about his whereabouts, his detention, or any charges against him.
After the Supreme Court inquiries during hearings, on April 27, his whereabouts have finally been revealed.
The Supreme Court directed the NCMC to present the charge sheet against Imran Munir in the court and to make arrangements for Imran’s meeting with his family.
How about Attiqur Rehman? The DAG told the court, “He is untraceable” too.
Attiq’s lawyer, Ikram Chaudhry, on the other hand told the bench that DIG and SP Abbottabad had told his client’s family members that he had been picked up by the agencies.
Justice Javed Iqbal summoned IG NWFP and SP Abbotabad to appear beforwe the Supreme Court on the next hearing on May 11, 2007.
Qari Saifullah Akhtar. The concise report presented by the National Crisis Management cell, revealed: “He is engaged in jihadi activities somewhere in Punjab.” (How do they know? And where is that 'somewhere'?)
Qari Saifullah’s lawyer, Hashmat Habib told the bench that government is aware of the whereabouts of Qari Saifullah since he was handed over to the Pakistani government by the UAE authorities on August 8, 2004.
He substantiated his statement by narrating NCMC’s Director General Javed Iqbal Cheema’s interview to a newspaper on August 9, 2004; saying, “Qari Saifullah is in custody of law enforcement agencies and Pakistani agencies are interrogating him.”
The then Information Minister, Sheikh Rashid’s statements given in August 2004 also confirmed that Qari Saifullah was in government’s detention.
After listening to the arguments given by both the sides, Justice Javed Iqbal ordered that a specific report about Qari Saifullah be furnished in the next hearing.
Naeem Noor Khan. According to the NCMC he is also not traceable either. Whereas in August 2004, government acknowledged his arrest. Sheikh Rashid, the then Information Minister , and Faisal Saleh Hayat, the then Interior Minister, and Shaukat Sultan, the then DG ISPR, all confirmed Naeem Noor Khan’s arrest in a press conference in August 2004.
On Supreme Court orders in the last hearing, the Interior Ministry had appointed Col Javed Iqbal Lodhi as deputy secretary to be accessible to the families of the missing people and to arrange their meetings with the detainees and also obtain necessary information regarding missing people.
Justice Javed Iqbal further ordered the deputy secretary to make his telephone numbers known so concerned people could contact him.
Qari Obaidullah was arrested from his house in Multan on November 26, 2003 by elite unit of armed forces accompanied by the agents in civilian clothes. But the armed forces never informed Qari Obaidullah’s family about his detention and they have not met him in four years. His wife had filed a petition in Lahore High Court's Rawalpindi Bench.
The Deputy Attorney General appeared in the court and stated, “Obaidullah was in the custody of the Armed Forces of Pakistan and was required in connection with a case under Section 2(d) of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952.”
The bench directed the Deputy Attorney General to make meeting arrangements of Qari Obaidullah with his family.
All the families of missing people expressed their fears before the bench that their loved ones could also be meted out the same treatment as Saud Memon was subjected to.
Saud was dumped near his home in Karachi on April 28, 2007 in a vegetative state. He is not able to speak, walk or hold his head on his own. This 44 years old man weighs only 44 pound (18 kilogram).
Justice Javed Iqbal ordered the Deputy Attorney General to inform the court about Muhammad Idrees Abbasi’s whereabouts and present a concise report in the court on the next hearing due on May 11, 2007.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)