Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Israel upholds Katsav plea deal

Israel upholds Katsav plea deal
Moshe Katsav
Mr Katsav escapes rape charges and pleads guilty to harassment
Israel's Supreme Court has upheld a controversial plea bargain that allows ex-President Moshe Katsav to escape rape charges and possible jail.

Under the terms of the deal which Mr Katsav made with the Attorney General, he will not be charged with rape.

Instead, he pleads guilty to two charges of sexual harassment and will receive a suspended sentence.

Allegations of rape and sexual harassment were made by four women who had worked for the former president.

Women's rights have led the protests against the attorney general's decision to drop rape charges against Mr Katsav.

A panel of five judges voted by three to two to reject petitions from six individuals and organisations to overturn the plea bargain made in June last year.

Originally, the police charged Moshe Katsav with rape, sexual harassment and abuse of power.

Part of the controversial deal was for Moshe Katsav to step down as president of Israel, a largely ceremonial role.

He will also have to pay damages to his accusers.

Rape convictions in Israel carry a maximum sentence of 16 years in prison.

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Israel upholds Katsav plea deal


p.s. I wonder if he had been a poor man, or god forbid, a poor pakistani or a muslim for that matter instead of a powerful Israeli, would the court have ruled out the same verdict? Sometimes I really wonder, these nations that our are gods when it comes to social values, like equality, justice, welfare states: Are they really upto their task, or is it the case "Everything that shines, isn't gold"

Blogged with Flock

Sunday, February 24, 2008

Soomro’s gift to himself: Live happily forever

By Ansar Abbasi

ISLAMABAD: Caretaker Prime Minister Mohammedmian Soomro has awarded Senate Chairman Mohammedmian Soomro, and his family, a life-long gift of a tax-free, hassle-free, well protected high flying retired life with diplomatic passports and much more, costing the state millions of rupees.

And as an unavoidable consequence of his controversial action, one more PML-Q leader and former Senate chairman, Waseem Sajjad and his family, will also keep thanking him for ever because Soomro has approved a long list of new privileges for retired chairpersons of the Senate.

Currently only one, Waseem Sajjad, is surviving and Soomro thinks he may soon join the list.

But it is obvious the move would directly benefit his own self at a huge cost to the taxpayers.

The shameless summary was initiated by the Senate secretariat on Dec 26, 2007 for the approval of the prime minister at a time when both offices of the Senate chairman and the prime minister office are held by Soomro himself.

A Prime Minister Secretariat order issued on February 12, 2008 under the signature of Additional Secretary Nasir Mehmud Khosa extends 10 privileges/facilities to not only former chairpersons of the Senate but their wives and dependent children.

In case expiry of former chairperson these privileges would even be offered to his widow and dependent children.

Free lifetime medical, both within Pakistan and abroad; lifetime provision of private secretary, security guard, driver and cook, free of charge access to state/government guest houses, etc, diplomatic passports, free telephone and a lot more.

It is believed that the implementation of the fresh order from Soomro would add an estimated annual burden of tens of millions of rupees to the kitty.

Issued by the Prime Minister’s Secretariat (public) wing and addressed to the Senate Secretariat secretary, the operative part of the order, whose copy is available with The News reads as: “Reference Senate Secretariat’s u.o. No.F.9(13)/2007-Estt., dated 26 December 2007 on the subject.

1. The prime minister has been pleased to approve the facilities/privileges for the former Chairperson of the Senate (elected), as per following:

(i) Exemption from taking out licenses for possessing up to three prohibited bore and six non-prohibited bore weapons.

(ii) Access to state/govt guest houses, rest houses and circuit houses in the country free of charge for self, spouse and dependent children (accompanied & unaccompanied).

(iii) Pick-up and drop facilities at all Airports in the country for self, spouse and dependent children (accompanied & unaccompanied) with protocol coverage by the provincial govts/Northern Areas/AJK in their respective areas and by the Cabinet Division/Senate Secretariat at Islamabad/Rawalpindi. Protocol coverage/Staff Car to be provided also during travel by road outside Headquarters, if required.

(iv) Detailment of a staff car by the respective governments for self, spouse and dependent children during their visit outside Headquarters throughout Pakistan (accompanied & unaccompanied) and by Cabinet Division/Senate Secretariat if chairman and his family visit the federal capital, if they reside outside Islamabad.

(v) Services of Private Secretary, security guard, driver and a cook for life time.

(vi) Free medical aid for life time in Pakistan and abroad subject to approval by the Medical Board for self, spouse and dependent children.

(vii) Diplomatic passport to self, spouse and dependent children.

(viii) Special security arrangements for chairman and his family either on his request or by the federal government on its own accord taking into account the circumstances past and present.

(ix) Free installation of telephone at residence and payment of charges for its use up to Rs 5,000 per month or such higher amount as the federal government may determine from time to time.

(x) Issuance of ASF passes for self, spouse and dependent children with endorsement of Apron at all Airports in the country and two Apron passes for staff.

2. The above privileges/facilities mutates mutandis shall apply to the widow/dependent children of the former chairperson.”
Soomro’s gift to himself: Live happily forever

p.s. May Allah save us from these jackals

Blogged with Flock

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Editors Picked 'Em: Best Collections of Downloads

By PC World Downloads Team

We've gathered up our best downloads and put them in handy, browsable collections.

These are among the most popular collections of downloads we've produced in recent months.

When you open a link, you'll see a list of the downloads we've picked. Simply click on the name of the download that interests you, read our mini-review, and if you're still interested, download away!

  • System Tune-up Tools -- Use these tools to clean out the junk and add new pep to your PC.
  • The 15 Best Downloads of the Year -- Our downloads gurus have selected the 15 best utilities, productivity tools and other apps of 2007 from PC World's vast Downloads Library.
  • Dress Up Your PC -- Tired of the way Windows looks? No problem -- you can dress it up just about any way you want, and these downloads will help you do it.
  • 14 Fantastic Freebies -- Get to your favorite folders in a snap. Stream TV stations from around the globe. Add new power to Internet Explorer. All this and more, and all of it for free.
  • Have a Happy Valentine's Day -- Win over your Valentine with these fun programs. Craft a card, consult the stars and decorate your sweetheart's screen.
  • Downloadable Fun & Games -- Have a ball with these games and puzzles, many of them free, while you are whiling away the hours this holiday season.
  • Speed Up Your PC -- You can have a zippier, more responsive PC -- you really can. You just need the right tools. These can help.
  • Ad Blockers That Really Work -- If you're tired of annoying pop-ups, flash ads and the rest, you'll find these downloads useful. Check the reviews thoroughly, however, as some are more effective at different tasks.
  • Hard Disk Utilities -- These tools will help you clean up, organize and generally improve your hard disk.
  • Timesaver Software -- These downloads can simplify your life. They will automate common tasks and can also replace several Windows programs that don't quite do the job.
  • Must Have Downloads -- Here is the complete list from our October 2007 article, "The 20 (Mostly Free) Downloads You Can't Do Without."
  • Recovering From Disaster -- You've totally screwed up. Lost files, accidentally deleted stuff. What to do? Doctor, doctor: Here are the cures.
  • Backup Tools to The Rescue -- These downloadable programs, most of which you can try out before buying, can truly save you when some kind of disaster hits your desktop or notebook.
  • Free Games & Great Timewasters -- New additions to our library; some are demos, others are full-featured freeware we think you'll enjoy.
  • New Vista Downloads -- These files can help you optimize your PC and notebook Vista operating system.

Content by:

Technology advice you can trust (Content by:)
Editors Picked 'Em: Best Collections of Downloads -   MSN Tech & Gadgets - Products

Blogged with Flock

Specialization is for insects!!!

In Age of High-Tech, Are Americans Losing Touch with DIY Skills?

Read a call to action for bringing back our handymen.

By Glenn Harlan Reynolds

Science-fiction author Robert A. Heinlein once wrote: "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."

That's a tall order. Although I can only do some of those things, I approve of the principle. Now­adays, though, we're specializing more. A popular Internet essay is titled: "I Can't Do One-Quarter of the Things My Father Can." Are hands-on skills — building things, fixing things, operating machines and so on — really in decline?

I think so. SAT scores provide a record of academic performance, but there's no equivalent archive for tracking handiness. There is, however, a lot of anecdotal evidence that what used to be taken for granted as ordinary mechanical skills now amounts to something unusual. When I recently wrote on my Web site about the importance of giving kids hands-on toys, a reader e-mailed: "Boy, can I second [your point about] the lack of basic skills in adults. I volunteer with Habitat for Humanity here in Los Angeles. The volunteers who come out frequently can't do something as basic as using a tape measure.... Many of my Saturdays are effectively clinics on how to pound a nail."

Even the simplest of automotive tasks, changing a tire, seems to be beyond the ken of many people. According to AAA, nearly 4 million motorists requested roadside assistance last year — for flat tires.

And just look at the Popular Mechanics Boy Mechanic books to see the kinds of skills that boys and teenagers were once routinely expected to possess. These books (which PM published in the early 20th century and recently reissued) assumed that young readers would be prepared to construct a fully rigged ice boat, a toy steam engine, or — I'm not kidding — a homebuilt "Bearcat" roadster powered by a motorcycle engine.

It's hard to imagine too many teenagers tackling projects of that magnitude these days. To be fair, young people today are likely to have skills that earlier generations never dreamed of — building Web sites, say, or editing digital movies. But manipulating pixels and working with physical materials aren't quite the same thing.

Does this matter? And if people are becoming less mechanically handy, is that so bad? I think so — and not just because specialization is for insects.

We don't all have to be MacGyver, but from time to time all of us will face problems that can't be addressed with a laptop and a cellphone. In a genuine emergency, having some basic manual skills could be the difference between surviving comfortably and being totally helpless.

I think that a modicum of ability in dealing with the physical world is good even for those of us whose jobs are mostly cerebral. Engineer Vannevar Bush, one of the great minds of the 20th century, made his mark on everything from the Manhattan Project to the development of computers. But when he wasn't commanding vast enterprises, Bush spent a lot of time in his basement workshop building things. He said that trying to make a finished project match his blueprints taught him humility and problem solving.

Shop classes and the Boy Scouts used to teach a lot of real-world skills, but both have faded under the onslaught of budget cuts and shifting political winds. (Shop isn't just for boys: My wife took shop in high school, and is glad she did.) The traditional father-son route for teaching these skills has also weakened, as many fathers lack the requisite skills themselves, and others, because of divorce, don't have as much opportunity.

I don't think the decline in hands-on skills is irreversible. In fact, it might be starting to turn around. The boom in home reno­vation has led many people to brush up their DIY chops. Home Depot and other retailers are finding success offering workshops in basic techniques.

We're also seeing changes in our popular culture. One example is the best-selling status of The Dangerous Book for Boys, by the brothers Conn and Hal Iggulden. It hearkens back to the Boy Scout manuals and ­other boys' books of the early 20th century, with instructions on how to build go-karts, bows and arrows, rafts and more. The book's success tells me people are interested in regaining lost ground. (It works, too: I gave my 8-year-old nephew a copy, and it got him away from the Xbox and into the outdoors.)

Conn Iggulden tells me he hopes the book inspires fathers to get out in the yard with their sons to build catapults and the like. "Most boys will value something they do with their dad, and they'll have an experience they'll value for the rest of their lives," he says. "If you show them how to beat the next level on the Xbox, it won't last the rest of their lives."

We can start with our own families, but there's no reason to stop there. Most people can do more than they think they can, and it's often fear of failure as much as lack of skill that keeps people from tackling hands-on tasks. So the next time you see somebody by the side of the road, waiting for AAA, pull over and show them how to use a tire iron. Who knows? It just might catch on.

In Age of High-Tech, Are Americans Losing Touch with DIY Skills? -   MSN Lifestyle: Men


Blogged with Flock

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

UK Police feared 'airport stand-off'; Israeli general escapes

Police feared 'airport stand-off'
By Dominic Casciani
BBC News

Major General Doron Almog
Major General Doron Almog refused to leave the plane at Heathrow
An Israeli general wanted for alleged war crimes escaped arrest in the UK because British police feared an armed confrontation at Heathrow airport.

Documents seen by BBC News reveal how Major General Doron Almog managed to fly back to Israel when police failed to board his plane in September 2005.

He stayed on board for two hours after a tip-off that he was facing detention.

Police were concerned about a potential clash with Israeli air marshals or armed personal security on the plane.

Maj Gen Almog had flown to the UK for social and charitable visits to Jewish communities in Solihull, in the West Midlands, and Manchester.

Lawyers acting for Palestinian campaigners lobbied the Metropolitan Police to act over allegations he had ordered the destruction in 2002 of more than 50 Palestinian homes in the Gaza Strip.

Campaigners say the homes were destroyed by the Israeli army as retribution for a Palestinian militant attack, in contravention of the laws of war protecting civilian property. Israel says destruction of Palestinian houses is among the necessary measures it takes to protect its citizens.

The Met initially refused to get involved, citing massive pressures on counter-terrorism teams in the wake of the London bombings.

But the legal representatives successfully applied to a judge for an arrest warrant for a private prosecution.

Decisions log

A decisions log prepared for the Independent Police Complaints Commission, which has investigated the incident, shows officers decided to detain the general at Heathrow's immigration control.

Homes destroyed in Gaza in 2002
Destroyed: Palestinians accused Maj Gen Almog of an attack on homes

They then planned to take him to a police station to consider executing the warrant.

However, news of the warrant leaked to the Israeli Embassy.

Officials tipped off the general and he and his wife refused to leave the El Al flight for the two hours it sat at the London airport's terminal.

The documents now show Det Supt John MacBrayne, a senior counter-terrorism officer who was responsible for the operation, could not get confirmation that his team had the right to board the plane.

El Al, Israel's national airline, had refused permission.

In his log, he wrote: "Another consideration [was] that El Al flights carried armed air marshals, which raised issues around public safety.

"There was also no intelligence as to whether Mr Almog would have been travelling with personal security as befitted his status, armed or otherwise."

The officer concluded there were real risks to the police and public and also had concerns about the "international impact of a potentially armed police operation at an airport".

Apology to Israel

When Maj Gen Almog arrived back in Israel, the planned arrest caused a minor diplomatic storm, with Israeli foreign minister Silvan Shalom describing the incident as an "outrage".

In turn, the then UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw apologised to his counterpart for any embarrassment caused.

Hickman and Rose, lawyers for the Palestinians, demanded an inquiry.

A spokesman for the Independent Police Complaints Commission said its review had not identified the source who leaked details of the planned arrest.

It also concluded police had not broken rules by failing to board the aircraft to execute the warrant.

John O' Connor, a former head of Scotland Yard's flying squad, told BBC One's Breakfast programme: "All they needed to do was to stop the plane from taking off and negotiate through the Foreign Office."

He said he felt the arrest had been "written off", putting "British justice is in the dock."
BBC NEWS | UK | Police feared 'airport stand-off'

More connected stories:-
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has apologised to his Israeli counterpart over the attempted arrest of a general accused of war crimes.

An Israeli human rights group says the overwhelming majority of Israeli troops suspected of criminal offences against Palestinians are never indicted.

Comment:
What makes the entire world impotent when it comes to any issue regarding Israel?

Blogged with Flock

Untitled

Embedded Video



Embedded Video

Blogged with Flock

Monday, February 18, 2008

An extraordinary encounter with Musharraf

As Pakistan votes tomorrow in its postponed elections, Jemima Khan is granted a rare interview with Pervez Musharraf, the country's beleaguered leader

Sunday, 17 February 2008

'Since you were so kind as to greet us in London at Downing Street last month, the President would like to return the favour," announces Major-General Rashid Qureshi, President Pervez Musharraf's PR man over the phone. Only in Pakistan could the government's head of spin be a retired major-general. He is referring to my last encounter with the President on 28 January – when, along with a 2,000-strong, placard-waving, slogan-jeering mob, I protested on the main road outside 10 Downing Street while Musharraf discussed democracy with Gordon Brown over lunch inside. On the way in he waved at us. Clearly he's a man who is not afraid of confrontation. Much to the justifiable fury of every journalist in Islamabad, he has now granted me an exclusive half-hour interview despite or perhaps because of the fact that I have recently described him as one of the most repressive dictators Pakistan has ever known.

On the way to the Camp Office in Rawalpindi, I cross the bridge and pass the petrol station, which mark the spots of two recent attempts on the life of the now deeply unpopular President. I have a horrible fear that, bamboozled under the spotlight of his renowned charm, I may start to simper. My ex-husband, one of the President's most vocal critics, has already told me he thinks this is all a terrible idea. "It will be misinterpreted in Pakistan. Besides, you'll be too soft on him," he said.

The Camp Office turns out to be an old colonial building which used to be the HQ of the northern command under the British. With its delicately carved, wooden, double-height ceilings, sweeping central staircase, marble floors and ornate carpets, it's not hard to see why the President chose this as his private office in Rawalpindi. His residence is just up the driveway.

A dozen straight-backed men in uniform – red waistcoats over starched cream kurtas – are ready to greet me outside. The President, I'm informed, is not quite ready so I am led to the staff office for a "tea break" with a group of army officers who make up his presidential office team. Musharraf's personal assistant, a dashing, grey-haired, light-eyed naval commander, and a jovial head of security, also a young army officer, joke that the delay is just an excuse for them to do a little preparatory brainwashing.

A bright yellow cake, some intimidating-looking chicken vol-au-vents and chai (milky tea) are wheeled in. Major Qureshi, Musharraf's Alastair Campbell, tucks in happily and regales me for an hour with stories about Soviet-era Pakistani military triumphs and the magnanimity and general excellence of his boss. "Any country in the world would like to have this person as their leader," he tells us proudly.

After an hour I am shown into a huge sitting room, divided in the middle by a latticed wood screen to segregate ladies from men at more formal functions. Musharraf enters. The last time I saw him in the flesh he was in his full army regalia. Somehow his civilian clothes have diminished him. I find his brown business suit and dainty penny loafers which have replaced the sturdy army boots almost unsettling. He seems to have lost both height and swagger. And his body language seems just a touch defensive. The immaculate hair also troubles me. Boot-polish black, artfully grey at the temples, it shows signs of some work.

I start the interview on an unfortunate note. "Given that the last time you saw me, I was protesting outside No 10, I'm grateful that you've granted me this opportunity. It's quite a coup." Bad word. There's a moment's silence while it hangs in the air.

The President, it turns out, is very disappointed in me. For a moment I think I have been called to his office for a sound ticking-off. "I was disappointed. Very disappointed," he says. "I was disappointed because you ought to be knowing our environment ... what Pakistanis are like ... what is our society. Well, it's acceptable if a person has never visited Pakistan and doesn't know Pakistan to have ideal views [presumably, he means idealistic views]. But I thought you ought to be knowing what Pakistan is ... This is not an ideal society."

He goes on. Mindful that I have only limited time and that there's a man in uniform sitting at the back of the room already checking his watch before I've even asked my first question, I politely interrupt. I remind him that when I first met him he too was an idealist. There is strange symmetry to this visit. I last met Musharraf three days before the last elections in 2002. And now here I am, five and a half years on, three days before elections on Monday. Back then, especially when Musharraf first came to power, I was a somewhat naive supporter. Selfishly, I was relieved when he succeeded came to power by military coup on 12 October 1999. Nawaz Sharif, the prime minister he deposed, had tried to have me jailed on trumped-up, politically motivated charges of smuggling – a non-bailable offence in Pakistan.

I suspect it was to intimidate my ex-husband, who at that time was a noisy critic. I had scarpered to London before I could be arrested and was able to return with my two children to Pakistan six months later only after Musharraf seized power and the charges against me were duly dropped. More importantly, though, Musharraf took over with the express aim of cleaning up Pakistani politics. He despised the corrupt politicians as much as anyone. He immediately set up his own national accountability bureau and declared that his mission was to hold the corrupt accountable.

I'm also disappointed, I tell him. The corrupt got off scot-free. And now it looks as though he will shortly be doing business with the very same politicians he wanted to get rid of.

Disarmingly he agrees – something he does a lot of. And I sense it's genuine rather than appeasement. He argues that he had no other choice but to deal with the existing leaders of the main parties. This is a little disingenuous. The national reconciliation ordinance which he passed in October 2007 effectively guaranteed lifelong immunity from prosecution to corrupt politicians such as Benazir Bhutto, her husband Zardari and others, and enabled her to return to Pakistan to contest elections. He asks if he is being recorded. I say yes. He hesitates, then answers tellingly, "Yes, I agree with you [that charges should not have been dropped]. But then Benazir has good contacts abroad in your country, who thought she was the future of the country."

I press him further. Surely even in spite of pressure from outside, given his feelings about the effects of corruption on Pakistani politics, those charges should never have been dropped. There should have been a proper judicial process.

I put this to him. "No," he replies, "because they would have all joined and then I would have been out." At this point he looks a bit wild eyed. He quickly adds that, of course, being in power has never been his ultimate goal. How much easier it would be, he adds wistfully and a touch unconvincingly, if he'd just resigned to play golf.

A uniformed bearer offers fruit juice and warm roasted almonds. I down my juice in one gulp, then worry it may have looked unseemly. In the past four years I'd forgotten that Pakistani women are expected to overplay their femininity. I'm lounging like a bloke and downing pomegranate juice like lager.

Often he fails to see the irony in his own words, which can be unintentionally comic. Several times I have to suppress a smile. When confronted with the suggestion, for example, that he will have to work with a coalition government consisting of some the most infamous crooks in Pakistan, he responds with great sincerity, "I'm not running a martial law here. What can I do?" He adds, "My role as a president is simply the checks and balances – the seatbelts ... a sort of father figure to the Prime Minister but I won't have to see him for weeks."

The image he paints of himself as a benign, legitimised dictator is at odds with the recent Human Rights Watch report that accuses his regime of hundreds of enforced disappearances, arbitrary detentions, harassment, intimidation and extrajudicial killings

Later when I point out that his old opponent Nawaz Sharif, leader of the Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N), has vowed that if elected he will reinstate the judges who were unconstitutionally deposed by Musharraf, he retorts incredulously, "It is not a dictatorship here! How can you reinstate judges if you become prime minister? How?" This rhetorical question comes from a man who on 3 November dismissed 60 per cent of the superior court judges, including three chief justices, in anticipation of their ruling against his re-election as President while still head of the army. Many remain under house arrest.

He seems to be someone who feels painfully let down and misunderstood. This is particularly the case when he talks about my ex-husband, Imran. "You know, I liked him. But he is the most unrealistic person. I wanted to support him." He mentions him a few times in the interview. And the strange thing is, I detect hurt. President Musharraf, dictator, despot, guardian of the West against al-Qa'ida – and all I can see are the wounded eyes of a betrayed lover when he talks about my ex. Under his regime, in the past year, Imran has been held under house arrest, jailed, then released and has had his movements restricted. Hell hath no fury like a general scorned.

I change the subject. Last time I visited him here in Rawalpindi he gave me a spookily accurate prediction of the imminent election results, which suggested information more than insight. Who will win this election? His answer is definitive. The PML-Q (the party otherwise known as the King's Party, assembled by President Musharraf himself six years ago to legitimise his "managed" democracy) allied with the Muttahida Qaumi Movement will "certainly have the majority. Whether they'll be able to form a government is a question mark." This contradicts all the recent opinion polls, which have shown that the popularity of his favoured party is right down, at just 12 per cent. I point out this out to him.

He dismisses the polls. They are biased, conducted by local organisations that are against him. "They have been abusing me right from the beginning and you will never get good results from them."

He seems increasingly paranoid. "The media have let me down ... The NGOs are against me. I don't know why. I think I have been the strongest proponent of human rights ..." In fact, the only people who are not against him, according to him, are the Western leaders who he says are "absolutely supportive" and "express total solidarity".

I don't doubt Musharraf's bravery or even his initial good intentions. Nor is anyone underestimating the scale of the problems that Pakistan faces today.

If anything, the impression is one of amateurishness and of a naivety that would be endearing if it had not been so profoundly damaging to his country. And in recent months he has become belligerent with local journalists. In London last month a respected Pakistani editor was castigated for asking about Rashid Rauf, the escaped terror suspect, and the fact that many believe he was deliberately freed by the police. Such impertinent journalists "should be roughed up", he was alleged to have told the assembled crowds in response.

When I ask about the deposed chief justice, Iftikhar Chaudhry, who is still under house arrest, he denounces him as "the scum of the earth – a third-rate man – a corrupt man". And the lawyers' movement? The lawyers have vowed to continue protesting on the streets and boycotting the courts until the deposed judges are reinstated and the constitution is restored to its pre-3 November status. "With hindsight," he replies solemnly, "it was my personal error that I allowed them to go and express their views in the street... We should have controlled them in the beginning before it got out of control." To those more used to seeing beards and white robes at protests, the images of suited, bookish-looking lawyers fighting off police batons were a memorable spectacle.

Musharraf mentions democracy a great deal. He seems sincere. He is genuinely likeable. But it seems he just can't help himself. You can take the general out of the army but not the army out of the general. It reminds me of the Aesop fable about the scorpion and the frog. The frog gives the scorpion, who cannot swim, a lift across the river. Halfway across, the scorpion stings him. "Why did you do that?" asks the frog. "Now we'll both die." "I'm a scorpion; it's my nature."

As I leave he presents me with a clock inscribed "from the President of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan". It seems an inauspicious gift from a man whose time may be up. He shakes my hand. "It will be the saddest day for Pakistan if Benazir's crooked widower is in power by Monday," I say. As the President walks away, he looks back. "At least we part on agreement."

An extraordinary encounter with Musharraf - Asia, World - Independent.co.uk

Blogged with Flock

Why General Pervaz Musharaf is threatening Hamid Mir and other Journalists???

Dear Journalist Colleagues,

 Thanks for coming to this press conference on the invitation of Pakistan Federal Union Journalists.

 As you know that Musharraf regime have banned many TV anchors including me without any written charge against us. The main objective of banning us was to pressurize Pakistani media to accept a new code of conduct for print and electronic journalism. This new code was drafted just to manipulate elections.Musharraf regime started pressurizing us to accept new media laws in 2006.I was served with a notice from the government in October 2006 when I hosted a talk show on the role of intelligence agencies in politics. I responded that notice through my lawyer and took a stand that I never violated any law. Government never issued any notice to me after my response.

 In January 2007 some top government officials offered me to join state controlled PTV.They said that private TV channels have no future and a big action will soon be taken against all of them. I refused. My office was attacked in March 2007 in Islamabad and I was also beaten by the police.Pervez Musharraf apologized to me after that incident but later on some more incidents took place. His words were different from the actions of his government. Journalists were kidnapped, arrested and tortured many times in different cities. Many of us received threats. I wrote in Daily Jang on May 2nd 2007 that government have decided to ban live TV programes.The government was again angry in August 2007 when I wrote about its plans against media and judiciary in “The News”. I sent my family outside Pakistan after some threats in June 2007.In September and October 2007, President House directly tried to silence me. They offered many bribes.

 Emergency was imposed on November 3rd 2007.All the TV channels were banned. We were not available on cable but I was doing my talk show for the satellite viewers. When I started participating in the protest rallies organized by PFUJ and RIUJ, I was informed by a minister of the previous regime that I could be killed in a small road accident.Musharraf regime manipulated to shut down our transmission centre from Dubai on November 16th.Geo TV remained banned for more than two months. Its transmission was resumed in the third week of January 2008 when Musharraf got assurance that I and Shahid Masood will not appear on Geo TV. He dictated his wish when the economic survival of the Geo TV was in danger. It was a clear blackmailing.

 Today the Pakistani media is working under pressure.Musharraf regime have plans to rigg the elections. I demand that Musharraf should come out with some justification of banning us with evidence otherwise we have no doubts that “we are banned just to protect his rigging plans”. Rigging few anchors will not help Musharraf.

 I am sure that Pakistani media will not allow Musharraf to rig the elections openly.Media will fight against the terror and tyranny on February 18th.

 

Hamid Mir

17-02-2008
Weekly Liberal Online

Blogged with Flock

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Call for help: Javed Chaudhary

Call for help: Javed Chaudhary

Blogged with Flock

The French Government's hypocrisy, Islam and Holocaust revisionism

Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:44:29
A Second Open Letter to France's Ambassador to the US by Paul Grubach
Faurisson was severely injured in a nearly fatal attack on Sept. 16, 1989.
This is a Second Open Letter to France's Ambassador to the United States by Paul Grubach February 8, 2008

Ambassador Pierre Vimont Embassy of France in the United States 4101 Reservoir Road, NW Washington, D. C. 20007

Dear Ambassador Vimont

As you are undoubtedly aware by now, Holocaust revisionist scholar Dr. Robert Faurisson will probably stand trial for comments he made at the Iran Holocaust Conference of December 2006. Allegedly, he violated France's Gayssot Act, a statute passed in 1990 that prohibits any public doubt about the alleged Jewish Holocaust.

There is a new development to this ongoing story that I would like to bring to your attention.

On January 24, Dr. Faurisson was taken into police custody for questioning and a search of his house was carried out. In my last open letter to you of January 15, I brought attention to the hypocritical double standard of the French government.

In September 2006, high school teacher Robert Redeker made a scathing attack upon the Prophet Mohammed and the Islamic religion in the center-right daily Le Figaro. Because of threats to his life, he was forced to go into hiding.

The French government immediately came to his defense, offering him police protection and a public statement on his behalf. In reference to Redeker's case, former Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin called the threats to his life "unacceptable," and added: "We are in a democracy. Everyone has the right to express his views freely, while respecting others, of course." (See The New York Times, 30 September 2006, p. A 3)

That this is an outrageous lie is demonstrated by the ongoing plight of Dr. Faurisson. In 1991, French "democracy" demanded that Dr. Faurisson be removed from his university chair. In July 2006, French "democracy" again violated his inalienable right to freedom of speech and research. He was convicted of "Holocaust denial" by a Paris court over remarks he made on Iranian television, and was given a three-month suspended prison term and he has to pay 18 000 euros.

Clearly, as the cases of Redeker and Faurisson show, one has the right to attack and violate the sacred beliefs of Muslims, but one has no right whatsoever to question and repudiate the Holocaust doctrine, one of the most sacred beliefs of Jewish-Zionism. The sacred belief and taboo of the Jewish people is enshrined in law in France. If you contest the Holocaust, you are prosecuted and persecuted.

However, the sacred beliefs of Muslims are not enshrined in law. If you attack Muslim beliefs, this is depicted as an expression of "freedom of speech." Once again, this is evidence of a hypocritical double standard. I have come across another case which further bolsters my point.

Do you recognize the name of the French Jewish writer, Marek Halter? He co-founded the so-called "anti-racist" group, SOS-Racisme. There is an interview of him in the February 11, 2005 issue of the English edition of The International Jerusalem Post, (pp. 9-11).

Halter claims that France's rapidly growing Islamic population is too frequently incompatible with democracy. Let me give you two of his direct quotes. Halter stated: "All of a sudden we realize that they [Muslims] are not a small minority anymore and that the way most of them practice their religion is not compatible with French democratic principles." He also stated: "Muslims threaten to weaken a French democracy that no longer knows how to impose its rules without seeming oppressive."

In April 2007 the European Union made inciting racism and xenophobia crimes throughout its 27 member states in a landmark decision. Even before April 2007, when Halter made these statements, inciting racism and xenophobia in France were outlawed.

That is to say, Halter made these statements when these "racism and xenophobia" laws were on the books. A French prosecutor could cogently argue that Halter's statements incite hatred and xenophobia against Muslims, and thus, the man should be prosecuted. After all, he is stating that Muslims as a group threaten to weaken and even destroy French "democracy."

This will cause people to hate Muslims. Your so-called French "democracy" allows him to make anti-Muslim statements. Yet, Robert Faurisson is put on trial by this same French "democracy" for making statements that contest and debunk Holocaust orthodoxy.

Do you see my point, Ambassador Vimont? France grants "freedom of speech" to Jewish people like Marek Halter who criticize and attack Muslims. Yet, "democratic" France denies freedom of speech to non-Jews like Faurisson who question and debunk the orthodox view of the Holocaust.

If France was truly a democracy as former Prime Minister de Villepin claims, it would defend Dr. Faurisson's right to freedom of research on the Holocaust. That is to say, there would be no "limits in advance" or "prewritten conclusions" about his Holocaust research.

After all, France grants freedom of research for atheists and others who deny the existence of God or attack the Islamic and Christian religions.

If the French government does prosecute and imprison Dr. Faurisson for his Holocaust revisionist views, this will only demonstrate to the world the truth of his arguments. The French government cannot disprove his Holocaust revisionism with reason and science, but must resort to oppressive laws and prison sentences in its attempt to silence truth.

Sincerely, Paul Grubach

A copy of this letter has been sent to Press TV
Press TV - The French Government's hypocrisy, Islam and Holocaust revisionism (2)

also see this

Blogged with Flock

Friday, February 8, 2008

Story of a Mother

قتباس بشکریہ:خاور بلال اور ماہنامہ خواتین میگزین لاہور۔ جنوری08


میرے خاوند فوج میں رہے ہیں۔ اس وجہ سے دونوں بیٹوں نے بھی فوجی ملازمت اختیار کی۔ بڑے بیٹے نے اپنی جوانی اور صلاحیتوں کو فوج میں استعمال کیا اور اب ریٹائر ہوکر اپنا کاروبار سنبھال رکھا ہے۔ چند ماہ پہلے کی بات ہے کہ ہمیں ایک دعوت نامہ ملا کہ کاکول اکیڈمی میں پاسنگ آؤٹ پریڈ ہے، اس میں شرکت کریں۔ میرے چھوٹے بیٹے کو کمیشن مل رہا تھا، اس لیے میں نے بھی جانے کی خواہش ظاہر کی۔ ہم تمام گھر کے افراد اپنے بڑے بیٹے کے ہمراہ خوشی خوشی کاکول روانہ ہوگۓ۔ ایک کھلے میدان میں پاسنگ آؤٹ پریڈ ہوئ۔ نوجوان جب پریڈ کرتے تو ان کے قدموں کی چاپ سے دھرتی کانپ کانپ اٹھتی۔ انکے جوش و خروش اور جذبے کو دیکھ کر میرے منہ سے بے ساختہ دعائیں نکلتیں۔ پریڈ ختم ہوئ۔ میرا پیارا بیٹا فوجی افسر بن گیا۔ اس کے کندھے پر اسٹار لگادیا گیا۔ مجھے انتہائی خوشی ہوئ کہ اب میرا بیٹا ملک و ملت کے دشمنوں کے لیے ننگی تلوار ثابت ہوگا۔

رات کو ڈنر تھا، ہم سب شریک ہوۓ۔ ڈنر خاصا پر تکلف تھا۔ ہم سب اپنے پیارے بیٹے کو دیکھ کر نہال ہوۓ جاتے تھے۔ ڈنر میں نوجوان لڑکیاں بھی مدعو تھیں جو بڑی بے تکلفی سے لڑکوں سے پیش آرہی تھیں۔ کاکول کے ایک انسٹرکٹر میرے بڑے بیٹے کے دوست ہیں۔ ہمارے ہاں بھی ان کا آنا جانا ہے۔ میں نے ان سے پوچھا؛ یہ لڑکیاں کون ہیں۔ انہوں نے بتایا کہ یہ ان افسران کی گرل فرینڈز ہیں۔ مجھے یہ سن کر سخت تعجب ہوا۔ میں اپنے بیٹے کو معصوم سمجھتی تھی، مجھے گمان بھی نہیں ہوسکتا تھا کہ ایسے معصوم لڑکے جو ماں باپ سے بھی بات کرتے ہوۓ نگاہیں نیچی رکھتے ہیں، ایسی بے باک اور ماڈرن لڑکیوں سے یوں گھل مل سکتے ہیں۔ میں نے بیٹے سے پوچھا؛ بیٹا یہ تمہارے دوست کسیے ہیں؟ اس نے حیرت سے پوچھا؛ کیوں امی، بہت اچھے ہیں۔ یہ تو ہماری گرل فرینڈز ہیں۔ میں نے اس کے انسٹرکٹر کی طرف دیکھا۔ وہ میری حیرت کو سمجھ گیا۔ اس نے بتایا، میڈم ہم انہیں یہاں اچھے فوجی بنانے پر پوری توجہ دیتے ہیں اور یہ اسی محنت کا نتیجہ ہے کہ ہماری فوج کا شمار اعلٰی فوجوں میں ہوتا ہے۔ ہم نے چند اصول بنا رکھے ہیں، اگر کوئ ان اصولوں کی خلاف ورزی کرتا ہے تو ہم اسے نکال دیتے ہیں۔ مثلاً اگر کوئ دوران تربیت جھوٹ بولے، چوری کرے یا افسروں کی حکم عدولی کرے تو اسے فوراً نکال دیا جاتا ہے۔ اگر ان اصولوں پر کاربند رہے تو اچھا افسر بن کر نکلتا ہے۔ رہا ذاتی کردار کا مسئلہ تو ہم انہیں لڑکیوں سے میل ملاپ رکھنے اور ان کی تفریح کے معاملات میں بالکل دخل نہیں دیتے۔ ہم ان کے ذاتی معاملات اور آزادی میں خواہ مخواہ مخل ہونا پسند نہیں کرتے۔

دعوت ختم ہوئ۔ ہم ہنستے ہنساتے گھر لوٹ آۓ اور پھر دنیا ک دھندوں میں یہ دعوت آہستہ آہستہ میرے ذہن سے محو ہوگئ۔ میں جانتی تھی اور گھر کے ماحول کے مطابق اس کی تربیت بھی یہ تھی کہ وہ شہادت کی طلب رکھتا تھا۔ کبھی کبھار میرے ذہن میں وہ دعوت کا واقعہ یاد آجاتا تو میں سوچتی کاکول اکیڈمی جیسے اصول تو ہندوؤں نے بھی اپنا رکھے ہیں تو پھر ان میں اور ہمارے بیٹے میں کیا فرق رہا۔ پھر خیال آتا میرا بیٹا مسلمان ہے، اسلام کا سپاہی ہے۔ نہ جانے پھر یہ خیال کیوں آتا کہ اسلام کا سپاہی شراب نہیں پیتا۔ غیر محرم عورتوں سے بے تکلف میل جول نہیں رکھتا۔ نماز پڑھتا ہے اس کے مذہبی اصول ہیں، وہ شہادت کو ابدی زندگی سمجھتا ہے۔

وقت گزرتا رہا۔ ملک میں دہشت گردی کے نام پر جنگ چھیڑ دی گئ۔ وہ فوجی جنہیں کفر سے لڑنا تھا، جو اپنا خون اپنے ملک و قوم اور مذہب کے لیے بہانا چاہتے تھے، انہیں اپنی قوم سے لڑا دیا گیا۔ ہماے مجاہد بیٹوں کو مجاہدوں کے مقابلے پر لاکھڑا کردیا گیا۔ ہمیں علم ہی نہ ہوسکا کہ کب ہمارے مجاہد بیٹے کو وزیرستان کے علاقے میں فوجی آپریشن کے لیے بھیجا گیا اور میں آج تک اس بات پر پریشان ہوں کہ میرے بیٹے نے وہاں جانے سے انکار کیوں نہ کیا۔ وہ نوکری پر لعنت بھیج کر واپس کیوں نہ آگیا۔

ہمارے پاؤں سے اس وقت زمین کھسک گئ، جب آرمی والے اس کی میت لے کر ہمارے دروازے پر آۓ، ہمیں کہا گیا کہ آپ کا بیٹا وزیرستان میں دہشت گردوں کے خلاف آرمی ایکشن کے دوران شہید ہوگیا ہے۔ میں سن کر تڑپ گئ۔ میری دنیا اندھیر ہوگئ۔ بیٹے کی میت سامنے پڑی تھی اور میں رو بھی نہیں سکتی تھی۔ میں تو اس امید پر تھی کہ میرا بیٹا اپنے وطن، اپنے دین کی خاطر کافروں سے لڑتا ہوا شہید ہوگا۔ یہ تو اپنوں سے لڑتا ہوا مارا گیا۔ میں اسے شہید کیسے کہہ دوں۔ اس وقت مجھے کاکول اکیڈمی کی دعوت کا خیال آگیا تو غصے سے اٹھ کھڑی ہوئ اور بیٹے کی میت کے ساتھ آۓ ہوۓ کرنل کا گریبان پکڑ لیا اور مجھے یاد نہیں کہ اس وقت میرے منہ سے کیسے کیسے الفاظ ادا ہوۓ۔ ہوش آیا تو ہسپتال میں تھی اور بڑا بیٹا سرہانے بیٹا تھا۔ میرے بیٹے کی میت دفنا دی گئی تھی اور پھر اس وقت سے میں کرب میں مبتلا ہوں۔ میں نے تو اسے مجاہد بننے کی تربیت دی تھی اور شہادت کا جذبہ ہی اسے فوج میں لے گیا تھا۔ مجھے کیا علم تھا کہ یہ ظالم لوگ میرے بیٹے کی دنیا اور آخرت تباہ کردیں گے۔ کیا وہ مجاہد بنا؟ کیا وہ شہید ہے؟ بزرگان دین مجھے فتویٰ دیں۔

Blogged with Flock

Thursday, February 7, 2008

Jee aaya noo!!


"Jalale baadshahi ho ya ke jamhoori tamashaa
Judaa ho deen seyaasat se to rah jaati hai changezi
" - Iqbal



Blogged with Flock

Monday, February 4, 2008

Seven Signs of a Falling Nation

No government, kingdom or society lasts forever. Here are seven factors that contributed to ancient Rome’s demise—warning signs that exist today within the nations of the American and British peoples.

By Bruce A. Ritter

In an interview with the Financial Times, U.S. Comptroller General David Walker stated that the United States government “is on a ‘burning platform’ of unsustainable policies and practices with fiscal deficits, chronic healthcare underfunding, immigration, and overseas military commitments threatening a crisis if action is not taken soon…”

The article added, “Mr. Walker warned that there were ‘striking similarities’ between America’s current situation and the factors that brought down Rome, including ‘declining moral values and political civility at home, an over-confident and over-extended military in foreign lands and fiscal irresponsibility by central government.’”

History reveals that all governments, empires and kingdoms of men, no matter how grand, no matter how powerful, ultimately fall. It happened to ancient Egypt, Assyria and Babylon. Even Rome was not exempt; though it dominated much of Europe, Northern Africa, the Middle East and parts of the Near East, and lasted for 500 years, the Roman Empire ultimately fell.

There is an old and popular saying: “Rome was not built in a day.” Likewise, the Roman Empire did not fall in one night; its decline was gradual. Not long after it rose to world dominance, several factors were already at work contributing to the empire’s ultimate demise.

Similarly, these factors are at work among the societies of the American and British peoples—and serve as warning signs of a civilization destined to fall.


For further reading: Seven Signs of a Falling Nation


Blogged with Flock

Sunday, February 3, 2008

Verging on Delusions: Inside the mind of a Dictator (and the 'yes-sayers')

Delusion: a firm, fixed belief held with great conviction despite evidence to the contrary. Delusion is a symptom of psychosis- mental disorders in which a person loses contact with reality.

In the last eight years of misrule this country has been subjected to, two pictures stand out for me. In August 1999 soon after the Nawaz Sharif government was overthrown, Brig. Rashid Qureishi, the spokesman for the military government came on television and declared 'We don't want sham democracy, we want real democracy. We want a government that is of the people, by the people, for the people'. I found it surreal for a man in military uniform using Abraham Lincoln's (without even acknowledging him) hallowed words and having no qualms about it.

The second picture is of an interview a few weeks ago. Mushahid Hussain, secretary general of PML (Q) was asked whether General Musharraf would give up his uniform. "Yes, he would", he said, adding "General Musharraf looks dashing in uniform and Mr. Musharraf would look dashing in a designer suit".

Although eight years apart the two statements give us an insight of how the minds of dictators and those around him, work. It is important to understand this if we are to break out of this impasse and save the sinking ship of this country.

Today, millions of Pakistanis live in abject poverty teasing out a living for mere existence. Millions are unemployed or underemployed. Millions remain without health care and education. Millions are subjected to the indignity of being treated in government hospitals. They have no security. They have no laws to protect them. Where there are laws it is only to protect the rich and powerful.

In many parts of the country, people are selling their kidneys to pay off their debts. Millions suffer the daily humiliation of hanging from buses to get to work. Millions live and breathe the air whilst surrounded by filth, garbage and overflowing gutters.

What goes through the mind of dictators and the people who hold the real power in Pakistan, as they see the abysmal state of affairs? Quite clearly they see the situation very differently from the way the man in street sees it. From their perspective, the existence of the country is being severely threatened (which everyone sees too) but they feel they are the only ones who know how to save it. They see the politicians as tried and failed, corrupt, greedy people who only have lust for wealth and power. They have examples of Nawaz Sharif and Benazir's experiments in front of them and that feeds their way of thinking.

What are we to make of our rulers who tell us that only they know what is good for the country? That the rest of us- academicians, economists, scholars, lawyers, judges, doctors, engineers, teachers, students, retired senior military officers and other members of the civil society are ignorant mortals who know nothing about the dangers facing this country or how to tackle them? That democracy is not good for us? That they know how much the people love them? And that they will know when the time is right for them to step down?

Or is it that they are suffering from delusions?

A dictator's thinking is severely restricted and he suffers from selective listening. He has a very narrow vision. He cannot live with dissent. Dictators tend to be liberal as long as you agree with them. Any serious opposition and they crush it, never mind the democratic intent. They do not trust anyone beyond a small close group of people who feed them only with the information they want to hear. Their whole perspective is based on this narrow line of information. Hence our (ret) General's reply in the BBC interview recently, when asked if he would resign, 'I will go when I realize the people don't want me'. When asked how would be know that, he replied 'I have my sources of information'. These sources of information are his close aides who feed him the information he wants to hear. He has no idea how unpopular he is and that the vast majority do not want him. But it is important to understand he actually means it when he says the things he does. He is not making them up.

This type of thinking is verging on a 'delusion'. Many dictators also suffer from paranoia- a feeling (beyond the normal opposition one encounters) that others are against them and out to get them and must be eliminated. Hitler showed many traits of paranoia, as did Stalin and Saddam Hussein. It makes them more and more isolated and insular and as they near their demise they become more and more bizarre- both in their thinking and behavior. We have countless examples in history of such dictators and their strange behaviors- Idi Amin of Uganda, Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Duvalier of Haiti, Marcos of Philippines.

One can see it in the General's (ret) responses in interviews recently. Hosing down of Benazir's assassination site was 'inefficiency', Benazir was 'unpopular with the Army', 'I am very popular with the people', the West is 'obsessed with democracy' and the ex-servicemen opposing me are those 'I threw out of the military'. The latest we hear is the statement against the London based senior journalist where he had no misgivings in letting him 'have a couple to fix him' because the journalist dared to ask uncomfortable questions. These are statements of a man whose rational thinking is fast eroding.

A dictator's military background and particularly if he has had commando training makes it difficult for him to think otherwise. It makes him rigid in his approach with a 'never surrender' attitude. To him every encounter is a battle and the enemy must be vanquished. The frequent use of terms such as 'tactical', 'strategic' and 'campaign' while discussing issues that have nothing to do with the military are indicative of this. You can take a man out of the army, you can never take the army out of the man!

Even his physical appearance is important to consider. Observe his walk, with chest out, tummy tucked in, dyed hair, purposeful stride. He tries to look much younger than his 64 years. This also contributes to his self-image and ego. Imagine if he stopped dyeing his hair- a white haired General (ret), which he actually is, would look very different and his whole image and persona- both for himself and others would undergo a drastic change. Mushahid's Hussain statement is a rare glimpse of how the 'yes men' praise the master, making him even more self-centred and in the process, more reckless.

Unfortunately, it is very difficult to change this line of flawed thinking as dictators do not think there is anything wrong with their way of thinking. Hence most dictators are forcibly removed- either violently or forced out. This is what history teaches us. Let there be no doubt about it.

The important question is: How much further damage would be inflicted on this hapless country before 'the dashing man' in 'designer suit' departs?

The author is a Professor of Psychiatry at Aga Khan University. He can be contacted on muradmk@gmail.com.

Blogged with Flock

Saturday, February 2, 2008

'Get America Out of the Way and We Will be Okay'

Former ISI [Pakistan Army's Inter-Services Intelligence] Chief [Lt. General] Hamid Gul tells HARINDER BAWEJA the troika of army chiefs, politicians and the U.S. has Pakistan on the
verge of civil war.

http://www.tehelka.com

Tehelka: Is Benazir Bhutto's assassination a death knell for Pakistan?

GENERAL HAMID GUL: Accidents and wars don't destroy a country. It is the political process that can damage it. Fortunately, the emerging leadership of the Pakistan People's Party [PPP] has shown solidarity with the federation [of Pakistan].

Tehelka: But the assassination of a former Prime Minister [Benazir Bhutto] indicates the growing threat to Pakistan from the [Muslim] jehadis.

GENERAL HAMID GUL: It is not the [Muslim] jehadis who have killed her. She was rather protective of the [Muslim] jehadis in the past. Benazir was never soft on the Kashmir issue, let me tell you that. I served as the ISI Director-General under her. The 'Taliban' [Afghan students] emerged during her second tenure in office and captured Kabul when she was still the Prime Minister. Her Interior Minister used to patronise them openly. It was not the [Muslim] jehadis but that is what the Americans [Bush-Cheney Junta and the U.S. CIA] would have us believe. They have designs for Pakistan and I strongly believe that the Americans have got her eliminated because this is the way they deal with countries like Pakistan. They either use them or subdue them. In the case of Pakistan, it is both.

The Americans worked out a model during the days of [assassinated General Muhammad] Zia ul Haq. Junejo was brought in to give the label of democracy and to gradually ease Zia-ul-Haq out of office after he had been used but it didn't work out. Zia got wind of it and removed Junejo from office. The Americans got very upset and destroyed Zia-ul-Haq. I make no bones about saying this. I will quote from [U.S. President Dick] Nixon's book, In the Arena (page 109), in which he says when Zia-ul-Haq's plane went down, "instantly it came to my mind that why we Americans destroy our friends after we have used them".

America is a very important player in our domestic politics. They can't be naive to understand that Benazir cannot work with a man like Musharraf and if they were trying to cobble together a dream team comprising Benazir and Musharraf, then either they were very stupid or had other designs. Could the charismatic Benazir work with Musharraf when he could not tolerate even a mild and placid man like former PM Zafar Ullah Khan Jamali?

Tehelka: But she [Benazir Bhutto] apparently came back after a nod from the Americans?

GENERAL HAMID GUL: She came back because she had a sense of history and she wanted this blemish of corruption to be removed from her name. She was pushed into this situation. Benazir had said two things before she landed here - one was about AQ [Abdul Qadeer] Khan (the father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb) and the other about 'Al-Qaeda' - that she would permit the Americans to strike 'Al-Qaeda' targets.

These are two things the Americans very badly want. One is a pre-emptive doctrine which has not yet been consummated. Even Musharraf has been resisting a direct ingress, howsoever 'pro-America' he might be. So, how could Benazir do this? How could she hand over AQ Khan to them? But she came and in the 70 days she spent, not once did she mention either AQ Khan or the 'Taliban'. She had drifted from the agenda and no wonder Musharraf said before and after her death that the lady had broken her promises. I have direct knowledge that my name was included in the list of people she felt she was threatened by but immediately after she landed here, she sent me a message and then another just three days before her assassination. She asked a source to tell General Sahib [Hamid Gul] to understand who got my name included. She said she would come to my house soon after the campaigning ended. She also told me through the source that haven't I noticed that she is not talking of AQ Khan. Everyone knows that the
Americans will never accept a populist leader, particularly in a Muslim country.

Tehelka: Isn't it one of Pakistan's essential problems - being willing to be led by the Americans?

GENERAL HAMID GUL: This is one of the fundamental contradictions in Pakistan's governance and political system. Unfortunately, you in India don't realise this. America wants to be the master not a friend.

Tehelka: Pakistan is often referred to as the most dangerous place on Earth. Does this bother you and the Pakistanis a great deal?

GENERAL HAMID GUL: The Americans call it a dangerous place because they have designs for Pakistan. The Israeli lobby will never rest in peace until they have snatched our nuclear weapons. In the 'war against terror', Pakistan is the target.

Tehelka: But the [Muslim] jehadi stranglehold is evident from the increasing number of 'suicide' attacks.

GENERAL HAMID GUL: That is pure and simple revenge. It is in Pashtun blood. It has nothing to do with Islam. These are revenge attacks. The girls who were burnt in Lal Masjid [Red Mosque] were from Swat [Pakistan]. I know that Lal Masjid inmates were ready to surrender.

Tehelka: The [Pakistan] Army and the ISI have not allowed democracy to take root, right?

GENERAL HAMID GUL: Partly the politicians have been responsible for this but it is true that the [Pakistan] Army has not allowed the politicians either. The Army is the strongest organ in the executive branch. Even now, when the judiciary rebelled, see how the Army fell upon it and strangulated it. And when the media started to side with the judiciary, they tried to kill the media too. This is the story of Pakistan.

Tehelka: Being a former [ISI] chief, you are absolving the ISI.

GENERAL HAMID GUL: It is the Army Chief who has had ambitions not the ISI. I have served the institution for 36 years and the ISI never wanted to have anything to do with politics. But the Army chiefs always wanted to enjoy power. He doles out ambassadorial posts after retirement and allocates housing plots, agricultural land.

Tehelka: You are willing to concede the Army's hold over the Pakistan polity. What about the ISI?

GENERAL HAMID GUL: The ISI is a branch related to security. The first line of defence has to be handled by the intelligence agency so it continues to grow in power. The ISI has played an important role and it has in its charter - through a prime ministerial decree signed by [assassinated Prime Minister] Zulfiqar [Ali] Bhutto - a political cell, so the politicians are at fault and the Army Chief and his coterie of generals are at fault.

Tehelka: The Indian Army has never had political ambitions.

GENERAL HAMID GUL: I will not reveal the names now but some Indian generals were seriously thinking of emulating the Pakistani model, especially after Operation Blue Star. I agree, the political leadership of India was far more mature and committed to the idea of democracy than the leadership of Pakistan, after Quaid-e-Azam [Mohammad Ali Jinnah] and [assassinated Prime Minister] Liaquat Ali Khan.

Tehelka: Please reveal the names [of all Indian Army generals who wanted to overthrow the Indian Government and rule India directly through the Indian Army].

GENERAL HAMID GUL: I will not. That's my choice.

Tehelka: The common Pakistani feels let down by its politicians who are willing to go into exile instead of fighting it out. So, the Establishment does dominate?

GENERAL HAMID GUL: This is true because they have been the products of the [Pakistan] Army. The political leadership here is brought up and nurtured by the Army, including Mr. Bhutto. He used to call [dead General Muhammad] Ayub Khan, daddy. They were brought up under the shadow of the military generals and they did not have the guts to stand up to them.

Tehelka: So unless America understands the need for real [civilian] democracy in Pakistan, you don't think that it will happen?

GENERAL HAMID GUL: Understand? They [Bush-Cheney regime] do understand but it does not serve their interest. They know it but they have helped destroy the very institutions on which a democracy is built. When you destroy the judiciary, when you limit the jurisdiction of the
legislation and gag the media then where are the pillars on which the edifice of democracy is going to be built?

Tehelka: How does the future of Pakistan improve?

GENERAL HAMID GUL: By saying no to America. And I believe that is not difficult. America is not being able to handle even a country like Afghanistan. What are they going to do? Attack us? Do they have the troops to attack? At the most they can bomb a few places. Let them, we
will come back to life.

Tehelka: How important is it for Musharraf to step down?

GENERAL HAMID GUL: It is essential for the success of Pakistan because we are otherwise drifting towards a chaotic civil war kind of situation, like the Iranian Revolution. One man is being supported by America against the will of an entire nation.

Tehelka: If he is so unpopular, why is the Pakistani street not more proactive?

GENERAL HAMID GUL: Because the two largest political parties [PPP and PML-N] decided, even after the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, not to take on Musharraf. That's my point. Get the America factor out of the way and we will be okay. No one is wiser than the victim and I think we are getting wiser.

Source: Tehelka Magazine - Vol. 5, Issue 4 - Saturday, 2 February 2008 - New Delhi, India.

Blogged with Flock