The recent murder of Pakistani governor Salman Taseer for opposing blasphemy laws tragically showcases the high stakes of the fight for religious tolerance and against extremism.
Salman Taseer, Governor of Punjab, Pakistan and a member of the nation's ruling Pakistan People's Party, was allegedly murdered by a member of his security team as a result of his opposition to blasphemy laws and for speaking out against the proposed death sentence of a Christian woman, Aasia Bibi, accused of blasphemy.
Taseer's murder is the most recent illustration of how deadly the debate over blasphemy laws has become—but unfortunately there is a long list of cases where laws have been used to squash religious freedom and repress religious minorities.
Obama's utter confusion over what to do with the "War on Terror" he inherited, other than to de-name it, is really coming to a head now, as the de facto Petraeus Doctrine now has us on the brink of war with Pakistan, as Rachel Maddow did her damnedest to explain last night:
Here's the transcript of the second half or so of the segment:
.... General Petraeus warned Pakistan that the U.S. could just send American troops marching into Pakistan. We could? General Petraeus reportedly warning Pakistan of that. Maybe he should warn us. That at roughly 5:30 in the morning this morning local time, not only did U.S. helicopters fly again into Pakistan again, they flew into Pakistan and shot at what everyone now admits were Pakistani soldiers, at frontier outpost. three of them killed, three injured, border post destroyed. Then a few hours later, we hit another one. Nato issued a statement of sincere condolences of those injured and killed. And the government of those in the country were killed. that country's government retaliated against us, by cutting off our supply route to the 100,000 American troops next door.
If you are being attacked are you fighting a war or are you in war together?
Are you fighting a war? or Ore you in war together? That's Pakistan's foreign minister. Pakistan's foreign minister also told reporters about the U.S. today this, quote, "We will have to see whether we are allies or enemies." It is the idea of a global war on terrorism that transcends countries, right? Our idea is about fighting terrorists, regardless of where they are. Transcending countries, transcending national boundaries. but, you know, if the United States decides that where it wants to fight happens to be in your country, the idea of what we're doing may transcend national boundaries, but the fighting doesn't. The fighting happens in specific places.
If what's going on with this escalation that no one is talking about is that the war in Afghanistan is sort of officially expanding into Pakistan, then this isn't just ho-hum, another chapter in the global war that's everywhere, this is Laos, Cambodia 1970. I don't care if people want to talk about afpac like it's a sinkle place, about pakistan being an extension of the existing war. what this is is war in another country. It is another war. Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan.
No matter how much we like to say we're here to help, they do not want us there. And so it's ultimately going to be a war, not with but against a country that has got a government, that has an army, that has a population of over 160 million people, more than half the population of our country. They've also got a global diaspora who have people who think of this as a war against America. and oh, yeah, they have nuclear weapons.
Military leaders are testing the idea of the war in Afghanistan being extended to Pakistan. and they're doing it quietly. if that is what's happening, if that is what's happening, if they're test driving, floating this idea of the war expanding into Pakistan, it is not a secret, and it is not going to be a secret. I guarantee it. I don't plan on being quiet about it. In fact, I plan on screaming bloody murder about it.
There is no doubt that we are heading headlong into disaster. We may have dodged a bullet when hair-trigger psycho John McCain was defeated for the presidency in November 2008. He would have taken us headlong into war with anyone for any reason--or, really, for no reason at all. But, as now should be perfectly clear, we could just as well end up in exactly the same place, only with the deceitful veneer of inevitability and necessity.
I have said before that a primary challenge to Obama is politically suicidal. But unfortunately there comes a time when political suicide is no longer the worst option one faces. That eventually came true after the Tet Offensive in 1968, and it could become true again. Let's hope that Rachel raising these latest developments and their true significance to such a high level of prominance will help set us on a course back toward sanity, toward a course in which we have better options than political suicide.
Beacuse we're already been, done that. Twice, in fact. Once in 1952, once in 1968. We don't need to do it again in 2012.
Most people don't even realize it, but an alleged al Qaeda terrorist - deemed among the most dangerous terrorists in US custody by US counterterrorism officials - has been quietly appearing in a U.S. federal court in downtown Manhattan for pretrial hearings for weeks now. His trial is scheduled to start there next week. And as the Wall Street Journal notes today, the NYPD - who are the national experts on counterterrorism security - don't see any need for extra funds to buttress their normal security procedures.
That's a far cry from the $200 million the police department said last year it would need to secure the trial of some other alleged al Qaeda operatives: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his co-conspirators in the 9/11 attack.
Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani is being tried for his role in an earlier al Qaeda terrorist attack on U.S. interests: the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998. He was considered so important to al Qaeda that after he was captured in Pakistan in 2004, he was subjected to so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" in CIA "black sites" while interrogators pumped him for information. He was only transferred from the Guantanamo Bay prison camp to a New York prison for civilian trial last year.
Critics of the Obama administration's decision to use civilian trials for alleged terrorists claim, among other things, that trial and imprisonment in the United States pose a major security threat. But according to Devlin Barrett and Sean Gardiner in today's Journal:
The New York Police Department plans some behind-the-scenes security adjustments for Mr. Ghailani's trial, but there will be no street closures or extra officers assigned to security outside the courthouse.
For anyone who actually lives in New York and knows what the downtown courthouse area is like, that makes perfect sense. Ever since the September 11 terrorist attacks, the NYPD has stepped up its patrols and security in the area. There are now concrete barriers around all federal buildings that make it impossible for someone to drive a bomb up anywhere near them. Security entering the courthouse has always been tight, which makes sense, given that the Manhattan courthouse has long been the primary location for terrorist trials.
The problem with the plan to try KSM and his alleged associated there wasn't that New York City lacked sufficient security; it was that political opponents of the Obama Administration turned the trial into a political tool they could use to undermine the administration. And once opponents like Liz Cheney whipped some locals up into a frenzy about the need to close streets and add security, downtown businesses got scared about how that all might affect their bottom line.
The truth is, as the Ghailani trial demonstrates, that the NYPD and federal prison guards are fully capable of securing the massive stone courthouse and adjacent high-security prison that's long housed suspected terrorists safely. We neither need to shut down the city nor spend another $200 million to accomplish that.
I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war.
Why do I have the feeling that ignoring this is a huge practical and moral mistake?
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon met Sunday with Pakistan's president, and both men urged the international community to step up efforts to help the millions affected by flooding in Pakistan...
He said he has visited scenes of natural disasters worldwide, but has seen "nothing like this. The scale of the disaster is so large -- so many people and in so many places, in so much need."
"Thousands of towns and villages have simply been washed away," Ban said. "Roads, buildings, bridges, crops -- millions of livelihoods have been lost. People are marooned on tiny islands with the floodwaters all around them. They are drinking dirty water. They are living in the mud and ruins of their lives. Many have lost family and friends. Many more are afraid their children and loved ones will not survive in these conditions."
When you read about the effects of climate change, you see these moving maps where large parts of the land mass become submerged and you think, "boy that's really something." But what this shows is the depth of human misery that mass flooding causes. And the probability that this will be happening with frequency and sometimes simultaneously going forward is quite high. What that translates into, aside from the aforementioned human misery, is political instability, mass migration and social upheaval. This is a peek at our future, and it's happening in one of the most dangerous places on earth.
Gosh, ya think?
At the same time, General Patreas is putting on a grand show to convince all the serious people (who laugh at global warming 'cause it snowed last winter) that we really can and should "win the war" in Afghanistan where less than 100 al Qaeda operatives may still be.
And "winning" that war will... do what exactly? Because I do have a much, much clearer sense of what it would mean to win the war on global warming. Another war in which we're very, very clearly fighting on the wrong side.
Of coure, global warming doesn't "cause" these sorts of things directly. It "merely" loads the dice more and more heavily in the direction of a different climate regime, and what we're experiencing now are the transitional effects as what were once highly unusual conditions become increasingly frequent.
Last week, U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy, Jr. released a forceful 36-page opinion in the case of a Guantanamo detainee that would ordinarily be shocking. Sadly, such opinions are now so common that, except for one news story and a few particularly alertbloggers, they get barely a mention in the news.
In his opinion, issued in May but publicly released just last Thursday, the Judge found that a young man from Yemen, seized at the age of 17, has been imprisoned in the United States detention center in Cuba for the past eight years without cause. Although five different times since his arrest officials reviewing his case said Odaini should be released, Obama administration lawyers argued against his petition for habeas corpus, insisting that because the Yemeni student had spent one night at the guest house of a fellow student’s family, and because he had a medical visa rather than a student visa (he said his father had gotten him a medical visa because it was cheaper), the U.S. government can lawfully continue to imprison him.
If that sounds bizarre, it’s not, really. Pursuant to the Obama administration’s interpretation of the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, or AUMF, it says it has the authority to detain indefinitely anyone, anywhere in the world who it suspects is affiliated with the Taliban, al Qaeda or associated forces. And if its position in the case of Mohamed Hassan Odaini is any guide, then it interprets that right very very broadly.
Odaini is one of many young men seized in the weeks and months after September 11, 2001 during raids on guesthouses in Pakistan. He has consistently claimed that he was a student at Salafia University who was invited for dinner at a fellow student’s home and spent the night there. But that home was also a guest house, and some al Qaeda fighters stayed there. Although none ever named Odaini as being connected to their cause, the United States insisted it can infer based on his overnight stay that Odaini was an al Qaeda fighter.
The other men seized in the raid corroborated Odaini’s story that he was a student with no ties to al Qaeda or terrorism. As Judge Kennedy notes in his opinion, U.S. government interrogators and officials, too, quickly came to believe Odaini’s consistent claim. Indeed, five different times, government interrogators or task forces independently determined that Odaini should be released. Each time, that recommendation was ignored.
Then in January, President Obama suspended the transfer of any detainees to Yemen, Odaini’s home country, after the attempted Christmas day bombing by a Yemeni national. At that point Odaini’s lawyer, who had until then assumed his client would be released, as recommended, resumed his petition for habeas corpus to the federal court.
In ruling on that petition, Judge Kennedy said that the evidence presented to the court “overwhelmingly supports Odaini’s contention that he is unlawfully detained.” Reviewing the evidence in painstaking detail, including Odaini’s and other detainees’ statements, plus summaries of interrogation and intelligence reports produced by the government, the judge himself seems shocked that the government would be arguing the lawfulness of Odaini’s detention based on the paucity of proof.
The government repeatedly “distort[s] the evidence,” writes Judge Kennedy, concluding that the only way to believe the government’s position is “if one begins with the view that Odaini is a part of Al Qaeda and searches for a way to believe that allegation regardless of its inconsistency with an objective view of the evidence.”
The judge concludes:
Respondents have kept a young man from Yemen in detention in Cuba from age eighteen to age twenty-six. They have prevented him from seeing his family and denied him the opportunity to complete his studies and embark on a career. The evidence before the Court shows that holding Odaini in custody at such great cost to him has done nothing to make the United States more secure. There is no evidence that Odaini has any connection to al Qaeda. Consequently, his detention is not authorized by the AUMF [Authorization of the Use of Military Force]. The Court therefore emphatically concludes that Odaini’s motion must be granted.
In concluding that Odaini’s detention “has done nothing to make the United States more secure,” Judge Kennedy may as well have been talking not only about this one case, but about the much broader problems caused by the government’s interpretation of the AUMF and international law. After all, indefinite detention at Guantanamo Bay and Bagram, the continued authorization of abusive interrogation techniques under Appendix M of the Army Field Manual, the prosecution of a handful of terror suspects by military commission, and the controversial drone attacks or “targeted killings” outside declared zones of conflict have all served to foment anger at the United States and been used to justify insurgent attacks. Meanwhile, none of those policies have been shown to have made the United States any more secure.
The administration appears not to be learning from past mistakes, however. Just as it refused to concede the case of Mohamed Odaini, it’s insisting that it maintains the authority to continue to detain indefinitely without trial some 48 more Guantanamo detainees who it has said cannot be tried yet are too dangerous too release – based on evidence that it acknowledges would not hold up in court.
Even more troubling is the administration’s continued detention of some 800 prisoners at the Bagram air base in Afghanistan, since the courts have ruled that those prisoners are not even entitled to habeas corpus review, as Odaini finally obtained here – eight years after his capture.
Last week, 15 former federal court judges urged Congress not to write a new detention law to authorize indefinite detention of suspected terrorists, because independent federal judges are best equipped to decide who’s detainable under the law.
The case of Mohamed Odaini is yet another reason to listen to them.
Update: I was thrilled to see this editorial in the Washington Post this morning pointing out that Odaini's case puts the lie to the still widely-held assumption that Guantanamo remains populated with "the worst of the worst" and urging Odaini's repatriation. Unfortunately, as the Post notes, the Obama administration's ban on transferring any Gitmo detainees to Yemen means Odaini is likely to stay stuck in prison even longer, despite Judge Kennedy's scathing criticism and determination that his detention is unlawful.
The New York Times recently posted a disturbing video on Pakistan. The report addresses the topic of anti-Americanism in the country, specifically with regards to its westernized, well-educated musicians:
While Pakistani journalists, playwrights and even moderate Islamic clerics have boldly condemned the Taliban, the nation's pop music stars have yet to sing out against the group, which continues to claim responsibility for daily bombings.
This summary doesn't do justice to the report. One really needs to watch the video - to hear the musicians themselves speak - to get a sense of their anti-Americanism.
Big progress out of Pakistan. President Asif Ali Zardari has signed the bill named the Protection Against Harassment of Women at Workplace Bill, 2010, aimed at providing a safe working environment.
Pakistan is living up to his Bhutto's battle for equality with this bill, a great progress for the women of Pakistan.
Eight years of slaughter, and not so much as a hint at what a "victory" would look like. It's gotten to the point where even polls by Fox News show a majority of Americans against escalating the war in Afghanistan, and polls by more honest organizations show a majority wanting to bring home the troops that are there now.
But our so-called representatives in Congress are reluctant to "interfere" with their own primary Constitutional responsibilities, and the so-called executive whom they've given free reign is undecided about whether to listen to us or the military. There's no time like the present to "go out there and make him do it."
The Pakistani disease, if we have to choose one and place it above all others, is not to do what one is qualified to do but to do that which one is not meant to do. The political class has forgotten the art of leading (it dances to the tunes of others). The administrative class is no longer any good at administration. The military have a mixed record in defending the country. But when it comes to seizing power--in other words, stepping out of their lawful domain--their record is unrivalled.
As for their lordships of the higher judiciary, far from being bulwarks of the constitutional order they have been abettors of dictatorship.
The recent Lawyer's Movement is turning out to be a watershed moment in Pakistan's history. It's not been as widely noticed in the US blogs as was the recent Iranian Green movement, but it is quietly transforming the political nature in Pakistan by its middle class influence.
There are a million and one things that people can do to try to end the U.S. wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, and to prevent new ones in Iran and elsewhere, as well as to close U.S. military bases in dozens of other nations around the world. Certain people are skilled at or interested in particular approaches, and nobody should be discouraged from contributing to the effort in their preferred ways. Far too often proposals to work for peace are needlessly framed as attacks on all strategies except one. But where new energy can be created or existing resources redirected, it is important that they go where most likely to succeed.
Obama's speech in Cairo (transcript) was hailed around the world by virtually everyone, except, as Rachel Maddow noted, for the trogdolite right. So why not have a foreign policy that's actually consistent with its main themes and main thrust, rather than one that continues Bush/Cheney policy with a "kinder, gentler" veneer? In his speech, Obama said:
The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent is as -- it is as if he has killed all mankind.
Missiles fired from suspected US drones killed at least 15 people inside Pakistan today, the first such strikes since Barack Obama became president and a clear sign that the controversial military policy begun by George W Bush has not changed.
Security officials said the strikes, which saw up to five missiles slam into houses in separate villages, killed seven "foreigners" - a term that usually means al-Qaeda - but locals also said that three children lost their lives....
Eight people died when missiles hit a compound near Mir Ali, an al-Qaeda hub in Pakistan's North Waziristan region. Seven more died when hours later two missiles hit a house in Wana, in South Waziristan. Local officials said the target in Wana was a guest house owned by a pro-Taleban tribesman. One said that as well as three children, the tribesman's relatives were killed in the blast.
And he has continued doing this ever since. All based on a false premise (from his Cairo speech):
Now, make no mistake: We do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We see no military -- we seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and now Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.
And it never will be the case, so long as we are over there killing yet more innocents. At some level, Obama has to realize that. And yet he spouts this utter nonsense, in the midst of an otherwise brilliant and inspiring speech. There has to be a better way.
Make no mistake: we do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.
If we are keeping troops in Afghanistan and Pakistan until there are no violent extremists bent on killing Americans, then it is highly likely that we will be keeping a large military presence in the region during the entirety of President Obama's administration. And probably beyond then, too.
Even if the goal is not to root out all violent extremists, but rather to keep a military presence until such time as local governments can deal with the threat themselves, then we have probably committed ourselves to an operation that will last another decade or more. I find that extremely unsettling, to say the least.
There just doesn't appear to be any exit strategy for Afghanistan, at all. Public opinion still favors a continued American military presence in Afghanistan, but it isn't the overwhelming majority it once was. Also, it is difficult to project if public opinion will hold up during such a long-term commitment. It might, but I wouldn't put money on it. At some point, the majority of the American people will probably want to start reducing our military presence in the region. This could become a major flashpoint for the Obama administration in the years ahead.
That's what Michael Berenbaum asks on WJW this week, and with good reason. As he points out, there have been some "unnamed U.S. government sources suggesting that former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, the president of the Pakistan Muslim League," should replace Zadari. First off, the pro-fundamentalist Pakistan Muslim League (PML) would give free reign to the Taliban, and secondly, Sharif is fundtamentally owned by Saudi interests.
The article gives background on Sharif:
Sharif has built his entire career on Islamist populism. In 1990, he ran as the candidate for prime minister of the Islamic Democratic Alliance, known as IJI because of its Urdu initials. Sharif became prime minister for the first time after a nasty anti-Bhutto and anti-Western campaign. Here is what the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, which sent observers for that election, had to say about that campaign:
"The most contentious element of the election campaign, and perhaps the most successful from an IJI perspective, was the IJI's strategy of tying Benazir and Nusrat Bhutto to the United States and to the so-called 'Indo-Zionist lobby' in the U.S. The lobby was portrayed as having close ties to India and Israel, and opposing Pakistan's development of a nuclear capability. In particular, the Bhuttos were accused of 'selling-out' Pakistan's nuclear program."
How can someone who described his liberals opponents as agents of the Indo-Zionist lobby be anything but a bigot? How can someone whose party had open rallies across the Punjab with thousands chanting "Death to Solarz, Death to Siegel" (Benazir Bhutto's two closest Jewish friends) be anything but an anti-Semite?
Additionally, both times Sharif served as prime minister, he unsuccessfully tried to impose Sharia law on the nation, introducing Sharia legislation in 1991 and 1998. If he is prime minister again, his alliance with pro-jihadist forces might this time succeed in the Sharia battle for control over Pakistan's legal system, just as fanatics radicalized Iran.
Scary stuff to think that some want this to happen. Whom? Well, think about those that might profit from the chaos for a start.
There may be some in the U.S. intelligence agencies who would rather deal with dictators than democrats. Perhaps the same people would prefer jihadists to moderates. Sharif has demonstrated that he is linked to the most radical fundamentalists in Pakistan, is notoriously anti-Semitic, ihostile to the United States, and indifferent to the war on terrorists and extremists in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
The United States has pledged to give $55 per Pakistan refugee caused by the escalated fighting in the region:
With Pakistan facing its worst refugee crisis since partition from India 60 years ago, the US is providing $110 million in emergency assistance for as many as 2 million refugees who have fled fighting in the Swat Valley.
The United States often provides emergency aid in such circumstances, but the sizable assistance announced Tuesday by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has a particular objective: to ease the hardship of Pakistanis who have been routed from their homes by fighting that the Pakistani military has pursued, at US insistence, against the Taliban.
With the US embarking on a new policy toward Pakistan that aims to defeat the country's extremist elements by winning over the population, the last thing the US needs is to start out even further behind in the battle for hearts and minds. As Secretary Clinton hinted in announcing the aid, the Obama administration wants to encourage the Pakistani people's early signs of cooperation and common purpose against the Taliban.
It should be pretty frakking obvious that what we are going in Pakistan isn't going to make the region more stable, and certainly isn't going to win people over to the cause of the Pakistani and American governments. You don't cause two million people--greater than the population of Philadelphia--to lose their homes, but then think you have made everything better by giving them each $55 (less the cost of distributing the aid).
People in the region don't hate America because of our freedoms, or their religion, or propaganda, any other reason involving culture or the exchange of information. Instead, they hate us because we helped force them, along with their families, out of their homes. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, we saw in our own country how much antipathy that sort of thing can generate toward the government. That, as a nation, we believe we can make a super-sized, man-made Hurricane Katrina work as foreign policy is a sign of just how deluded our national consciousness on foreign policy really is.
Last night, Bill Moyers Journal featured a long discussion (transcript here) focused on Pakistan with Juan Cole, and Shahan Mufti. While it had many interesting facets to it, the main thrust cannot be emphasized enough: rumors of Pakistan's death have been greatly exaggerated, and they tell us more about ourselves than about Pakistan. Perhaps one of the most arresting (and obvious, once you think about it) observations made was this:
JUAN COLE: You know, in the past two years, the Pakistani public has demanded an end to a military dictatorship. On the grounds that it was violating the rule of law. They demanded free and fair parliamentary elections. They accomplished them. They voted the largest party they put in is the left of center or centrist secular party. They then went to the streets to demand the reinstatement of the secular civil Supreme Court. And you've had, really, hundreds of thousands of people involved in this movement for the restoration of democracy and the restoration of the rule of law. If this had happened any other place in the world, it would be reported in Washington as a good news story. Here, we've been told that it's a crisis. That it's a sign of instability and nuclear armed nation. I don't understand that.
At the risk of seeming impertinent, I think I understand it perfectly, Juan. They've shown us what a real democracy would look like, and it totally freaks us out.
The fact is, Pakistan has a really lousy political culture, as bad or worse than ours in many ways, and yet the Pakistani people have simply refused to take it lying down. And for that, they are deserving of the absolutely highest respect.
STATE BLOGS
