Taken from Teeth.com.pk/blog

UPDATED: Mobile pictures - Benazir was defintely shot dead before the Blast

New Images updated below: Considering all the commotion and fuss created by the government of Pakistan saying the called that Benazir Bhutto was not hit by the three bullets but instead she hit her head on some ‘lever’ of the sunroof. Last night I was contacted by a person via Orkut who had uploaded these images on his profile (now he has taken them off) he was offering to share his video to the extent that he gave his cell number in Islamabad, since his dial up did not permit transferring this heavy file.
On contacting him today he claimed that he was a PPP supporter and his party had instructed him not to share this with anyone. Later when a news reporter tried contacting him, his cell phone was switched off. I have two images to share with you which were initially taken off his Orkut Profile
The first image clearly shows Benazir Bhutto standing upright in the car through the sunroof waving to the crowd

The next image is just after the gun shots which were fired from the left but moments before the bomb blast. Here we see Benazir Bhutto not on the sunroof of the car most likely already shot and injured slumped inside

I sadly do not have the original video, though I tried very hard to get it. A source was in direct contact with the cameraman who actually shot the video and later uploaded the screen captures to show that he means serious business. He claimed to be in the security detail with Benazir Bhutto was riding on her car barely five minutes earlier but had to jump off as she exited the Liaquat Bagh venue. He was finding it difficult to upload the 56MB video file online so was ready to allow someone to help him get it readily available. Today morning he said that his cell phone was ringing off the hook with people clambering in the hunt for the video, hence forth he turned his cell phone off and had even removed the images from his Orkut profile.

url:http://www.teeth.com.pk/blog/2007/12/29/mobile-pictures-benazir-was-defintely-shot-dead-before-the-blast/

Who killed Bhutto? we want the truth.

ISPR last night after 28 hours of Benazir’s death has said that Benazir’s murder is due to Abdullah Mehsud’s men. ISPR’s intelligence claims that shots were fired at Benazir and in the process of ducking Benazir’s head hit the lever of the sunroof that fractured her skull resulting in fatal injuries.

3 evidences were put across in the press conference 1) Benazir’s X-ray, 2) a video clip and 3) translation of intercepted message between Abdullah Mehsud and one of his men.

The X-ray proves that the skull was not hit by the bullets but are we sure that the X-ray was of Benazir’s? Not at all. The video clip showed nothing in regards to when the shots were fired Benazir tried to duck and hurt her head. On the contrary when the shots were heard there weren’t any visuals in the clip what has the ISPR seen in the clip to state such claim only God alone knows? The translation of the intercepted message has serious flaws and the main one is that the conversation was between Abdullah Mehsud and company is not provable unless ISPR is very very familiar with Abdullah’s voice which they should have stated in the press conference.

Other flaws in the conversation are that one person asked the other when did he arrive and the reply was “now, in the night” “MAIN ABHI RAAT KO POHUNCHA HOON” whereas the ISPR stated that they intercepted the message in the morning, question arises why would in the morning someone would say that “I have arrived now, in the night”? The other question in the message is that it no where gives a slightest hint that they are referring to Benazir’s assassination or any assassination. Why and how has the ISPR claimed that it referred to Benazir’s assassination is not clear at all?

All these three evidences put across, hardly create a link between Benazir’s assassination and ISPR’s conclusion but ISPR had the courage to come up on the media and claimed the same. The press conference and ISPR’s conclusion not only create serious flaws but also discredit their claim strongly and has made people skeptical as to why is ISPR claiming something that cannot be proved at all. One thing ISPR’s Cheema said which I completely agree is that whenever such instances are occurred the first thing that happens is that the truth is made the casualty, perhaps that is exactly what Cheema was trying to do i.e. hiding the truth.

Also, apart from ISPR’s claims another highly questionable thing is that why did Asif Zardari opt to not to have the autopsy this is highly objectionable on his part and other people’s party leaders?

________________________

Asim H. Akhund

Every man dies, not every man lives.

Benazir’s demise not only leaves the nation shocked but has orphaned the masses who followed her like a child following his mum. Many people still finding it difficult to come terms with this loss, Sindhis in particular are deeply aggrieved because they feel their only representation has been taken away from them. Her father had many qualities and although other qualities may well be debatable there is no doubt that she was as courageous as her father. To me possessing this quality is enough to mourn her death and my heart goes to her family and all those who admired. She was a courageous daughter of a courageous father.

Asim H. Akhund

Who killed Benazir Bhutto? The main suspects

Jeremy Page, South Asia Correspondent - December 27, 2007

The main suspects in Benazir Bhutto’s assassination are the Pakistani and foreign Islamist militants who regarded her as a heretic and an American stooge and had repeatedly threatened to kill her.

But fingers will also be pointed at Inter-Services Intelligence, the agency that has had close ties to the Islamists since the 1970s and has been used by successive Pakistani leaders to suppress political opposition.
Ms Bhutto narrowly escaped an assassination attempt in October, when a suicide bomber killed about 140 people at a rally in the port city of Karachi to welcome her back from eight years in exile.

That month, two militant warlords based in the lawless northwestern areas of Pakistan, near the border with Afghanistan, had threatened to kill her on her return.

One was Baitullah Mehsud, a top commander fighting the Pakistani army in the tribal region of South Waziristan. He has close ties to al-Qaeda and the Afghan Taleban.

The other was Haji Omar, the “amir” or leader of the Pakistani Taleban, who is also from South Waziristan and fought against the Soviets with the Mujahidin in Afghanistan.

After that attack Ms Bhutto revealed that she had received a letter signed by a person who claimed to be a friend of al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden threatening to slaughter her like a goat.

She accused Pakistani authorities of not providing her with sufficient security and hinted that they may have been complicit in the bomb attack. Asif Ali Zardari, her husband, directly accused the ISI of being involved in that attempt on her life.

Ms Bhutto stopped short of blaming the Government directly, saying that she had more to fear from unidentified members of a power structure that she described as allies of the “forces of militancy”.

Analysts say that President Musharraf himself is unlikely to have ordered her assassination, but that elements of the army and intelligence service would have stood to lose money and power if she had become Prime Minister.

The ISI, in particular, includes some Islamists who became radicalised while running the American-funded campaign against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and remained fiercely opposed to Ms Bhutto on principle.

Saudi Arabia, which has strong influence in Pakistan, is also thought to frown on Ms Bhutto as being too secular and Westernised and to favour Nawaz Sharif, another former Prime Minister.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article3100052.ece

Weakening Pakistan

Published: December 22, 2007

Pakistan’s president, Pervez Musharraf, insists his outrageous power grabs are aimed at stabilizing and protecting his country. His authoritarian maneuvers only weaken the country’s already feeble political institutions and fuel more political turmoil. Turmoil is not what anyone needs in a country that is both armed with nuclear weapons and supposedly helping lead the fight against Al Qaeda. On Friday, dozens of people were killed in a bombing, apparently aimed at one of Mr. Musharraf’s political allies.

Mr. Musharraf’s decision to end six weeks of martial law was long overdue, as was his decision last month to finally quit his army post and take the presidential oath of office as a civilian. Any hope that he was nudging the country toward a genuine democracy was quashed when he also moved to exempt his own most controversial actions from any court challenges. That means his highly questionable election to a new five-year term will stand, as will his dismissal of 13 Supreme Court judges and more than 40 High Court judges.

Mr. Musharraf seized power in a 1999 coup, so his rule lacks legitimacy no matter how he manipulates the country’s legal underpinnings. But instead of trying to strengthen Pakistan’s institutions, he is continuing to undermine them for his own power and profit. Meanwhile, Pakistan’s citizens leave no doubt that they’re sick of the former general. A poll this month by the Washington-based International Republican Institute (affiliated with the Republican Party) found that 67 percent of Pakistanis want Mr. Musharraf to resign immediately.

As ever, criticism from the Bush administration has been unacceptably muted. New doubts were raised last week about Mr. Musharraf’s proclaimed commitment to the fight against terrorism — the main justification for Washington’s enabling — when a Pakistani suspect accused of plotting to blow up trans-Atlantic airplanes somehow managed to slip out of his handcuffs and escape from custody.

Next month’s parliamentary elections will be another test of Mr. Musharraf’s intentions — and Washington’s influence. As usual, he holds most of the cards: the press is muzzled; the judiciary is packed with his loyalists; and there are serious doubts about whether political opponents will be allowed to campaign freely. One of Mr. Musharraf’s main rivals, former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, has been permitted to stand for election, but the other, Nawaz Sharif, has been barred.

Mr. Musharraf insists that he wants a free election but has sown grave doubts about whether he will work with whoever wins. His friends in Washington need to tell the former general and the Pakistani military — no matter what the polls say about his unpopularity — that trying to rig this vote is unacceptable.

Congress and the administration took some steps to restrict aid to Pakistan after Mr. Musharraf declared emergency rule, but more pressure may be necessary to get the former general’s attention. Most important, Pakistanis need to turn out in force on election day to ensure that everybody — not just the former general — can have a say in Pakistan’s future.

O Allah, bless us with a ruler who knows what he is doing...

Faiz Ahmed Faiz

Jo rukay to Koh e Giran the hum;
Jo chalay to Jan se guzar gaye,
Rah e Azadi hum ne qadam qadam;
Tujhe yaadgar bana diya.


Translation
When I stopped I was a heavy mountain;
When I moved I passed away from this World,
O path of Freedom;
I made you memorable in every step I took.

Faiz Ahmed Faiz

If they snatch my ink and pen,
I should not complain,
For I have dipped my fingers
In the blood of my heart.
I should not complain
Even if they seal my tongue,
For every ring of my chain
Is a tongue ready to speak.

Faiz Ahmed Faiz

"Bol ki lab azaad hain teray

Bol zubaan ab tak teri hai

Tera sutawaan jism hai tera

Bol ki jaan ab tak teri hai

Dekh ke aahangar ki dukaan mein

Tund hain sholay surkh hai aahan

Khulanay lagay quffalon kay dahaanay

Phela har ik zanjeer ka daaman

Bol ye thora waqt bohat hai

Jism-o-zubaan ki maut se pehlay

Bol ki sach zindaa hai ab tak
Bol jo kuch kehna hai kehlay"

Translation:
"Speak, for your lips are yet free
Speak, for your tongue is still your own
Your lissom body yours alone
Speak, your life is still your own
Look into the blacksmith’s forge
The flame blazes, the iron’s red
Locks unfasten open-mouthed
Every chain’s link springing wide
Speak, a little time suffices
Before the tongue, the body die
Speak, the truth is still alive
Speak: say what you have to say"

[Translation by Yasmin Hosain]

A Conversation With Pervez Musharraf

By Lally WeymouthSunday, December 16, 2007; Page B1

An angry President Pervez Musharraf defended imposing a state of emergency on Pakistan and blamed the Western media for many of his problems -- from increased attacks by Islamic extremists to lawyers who have taken to the streets to protest his suspension of the constitution and firing of the country's chief justice. In an interview with Newsweek-Washington Post's Lally Weymouth, the Pakistani president reiterated that he would lift the state of emergency Saturday but will not reinstate judges who opposed him. Despite his opponents' doubts, Musharraf insisted he will ensure a free and fair election in January. But he refused to say whether he would endorse a constitutional amendment to allow former prime minister Benazir Bhutto to serve a third term.

Q. Is there a difference now that you have shed your uniform and relinquished your post of army chief of staff?

A. On a personal note, I loved my uniform. From the national point of view, I don't think there is a difference. I think the overall situation will be better and stro nger. The army is being managed by a chief of staff dedicated to the job, and I will be president of Pakistan, and if the two are totally in harmony, the situation is better.

Q. You will appoint the heads of the army?

A. I will appoint the chief. The security services report to the president and the prime minister. . . . The ISI [military intelligence service] reports to the political leaders.

Q. Once there is a prime minister, how do you see power being shared?

A. The prime minister runs the government. Then there is a National Security Council chaired by the president that meets to review situations. But this is only a consultative body. There is no sharing of responsibility, really.

Q. You imposed a state of emergency. You announced it will be lifted on December 15th. Does that mean that the regulations recently imposed on the press will be lifted?

A. There are no restrictions on the press.

Q. Wasn't there a code of conduct [mandating "responsible journalism"]?

A. We issued a code of conduct and asked them to sign it. It's as good as you have in your own country. All the channels except one accepted it, and all except one are open. The print media were not closed at all.

Q. In the U.S., there is no code of conduct for journalists -- they are free to write what they want.

A. If you see our press and electronic media, there is no problem criticizing the government. . . . The problem was that they were distorting realities and creating despondencies in the people of Pakistan by showing pictures of dead bodies and interviewing terrorists -- not showing the law enforcement authorities in a good light but showing the terrorists in a better light. Thus they encouraged terrorism and discouraged the law enforcers. They were undermining the good work of the government, were entirely one-sided, and some responsibility had to be brought in.

Q. In the U.S., it would be unacceptable to have a code of conduct. Don't you think you should lift that when you end the state of emergency?
A. No, the code of conduct is there in most countries of the world. Why should we compare the United States to Pakistan?

Q. Will the judges be restored to their prior positions?
A. No, not at all. What judges? Why should they be restored? New judges are there. They will never be restored.

Q. People in the West will have a hard time understanding that.
A. Let them not understand. They should come to Pakistan and understand Pakistan.

Q. Since you say you are restoring the constitution, why not also restore the courts?
A. No, there is no restoration of courts required -- the courts are already there.

Q. But these judges are handpicked by you.
A. We took action. The judges had to take oaths, and those that took the oaths are there. Those that did not are gone. This action was validated by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. . . . There was something seriously wrong with the chief justice of Pakistan. On March 9th, there were charges against him of corruption; [he was accused of] interfering [with] the judgments of judges on other courts; he was accused of interfering in the executive by taking actions on issues from traffic control to privatization.

Q. Do you feel you stuck your neck out for the United States after September 11th and the United States has not stood by you?

A. No, I don't. I stuck out my neck for Pakistan. I didn't stick out my neck for anyone else. It happened to be in the interest of the world and the U.S. . . . The problem with the West and your media is your obsession with democracy, civil liberties, human rights. You think your definition of all these things is [correct]. . . . Who has built democratic institutions in Pakistan? I have done it in the last eight years. We empowered the people and the women of Pakistan. We allowed freedom of expression.

Q. Then why are you now clamping down on the media? You seem far more angry now than ever before.

A. I think you are right. [Laughs] Why don't you understand? Am I a madman? Have I suddenly changed? Am I a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde?

Q. People make mistakes.
A. I don't make such mistakes. I take considered views. I don't sleep at night and suddenly dream of something and issue orders in the morning. I discuss, I debate issues and then take decisions.
Here was the situation when I had to take action on 3rd November [when Musharraf declared the state of emergency]. The Western media was undermining what [we] are doing. Your media keeps criticizing the army and the ISI -- not understanding what their real contribution is to fighting terrorism. If the media is doing something which is totally demoralizing the nation, [resulting in a] government which is almost nonfunctional, the economy taking a downturn, despair and despondency in the nation . . . terrorism rising in the settled districts, then . . .

Q. Mr. President, terrorism is not rising because of the media. Terrorism is rising because the U.S. went into Afghanistan, bombed the Taliban, and they ran into your country.
A. No, let me give you the answer. You take this Red Mosque incident [in which pro-Taliban clerics at an Islamabad mosque instigated an armed standoff with the government last July]. We took action. What did the media do about it? They showed those who took action as villains and brought those madwomen who were there on television and made heroes of them.

It should have been converted into a great positive. . . . Instead, it was as if we had done something terrible.

Q. Can Pakistan contain the threat from the extreme Islamists?
A. We are combating it, and I think we are on the winning side. The issue is in the FATA -- that is, the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. There are two of them in north and south Waziristan and a third one in Bajaur. . . .

Q. Is that the area where you think Osama bin Laden is hiding?

A. No, these are settled districts. He could be in Bajaur -- this is the tribal agency bordering Kunar province, where there were no coalition forces in the past. On the Afghan side -- that's in Afghanistan.

Q. So you can go from one side to the other?

A. That's a possibility.

Q. Does your intelligence service know where Osama is?
A. Nobody knows.

Q. Has President Bush been supportive?
A. The president has been extremely supportive. I have nothing against President Bush. I think he has been most supportive; he has been a very sincere friend. I must say he understands fully the Pakistan environment. He understands why I had to act and what I'm facing. He totally and completely understands.

Q. You think he understands why you imposed the state of emergency?
A. Yes, he understands the emergency. He understands what we were suffering and that an action had to be taken.

Q. Why are there more extremists now than when you came to office? Is it because of the U.S. bombing of Afghanistan? Is it because there's a growing anti-American feeling?
A. There is an anti-American feeling, and certainly U.S. actions in Afghanistan have an impact on it. On a larger scale, I would say the impact of whatever is happening to the entire Muslim world, starting with Palestine.

Q. You mean plus the lack of any progress on the Israeli-Palestinian issue?

A. Yes, you see all turmoil today is in the Muslim world. Iraq, Lebanon -- when the Israelis came into Lebanon -- and Afghanistan, of course.

Q. You see the U.S. discussing withdrawing from Iraq. Does this mean America pulls out of this region again?

A. Unless there is an arrangement where you don't create chaos and destabilize this whole region, it would be a mistake.

Q. You mean withdrawing from Iraq would be a mistake?
A. Yes, if there were a sudden withdrawal. Either make some arrangement where there is a continuity of the effort to bring sanity and democratic government into Iraq and ensures the integrity of Iraq. If we [just] leave, I don't know what will happen there.

Q. Do you feel you could work with Benazir Bhutto?
A. When you talk of working with her, you imply she is going to be the prime minister. Why do you imply that? I keep telling everyone we haven't had the elections.

Q. If she gets enough votes, do you think you could work with her?
A. Yes, of course.

Q. If she gets enough votes in the Congress to allow her to serve a third term, would you allow the ban [on anyone serving for three terms as prime minister] to be lifted?
A. We'll have to decide on that once they win the vote.

Q. But didn't you promise the U.S. last summer that you'd lift the ban on that?

A. No, I haven't given any such promises. We did talk about it, but there were many things that we talked about which have been violated . . .

Q. And you feel you could work with her?

A. I think so. I am not such an unpleasant person.

Q. Some say that you want the prime minister to come from your own party.

A. We are going to have fair and transparent elections.

Q. Is that really true?

A. Why do you think it is untrue?

Q. Mrs. Bhutto charges that there are going to be ghost polling stations -- that the voting is going to be rigged.

A. That is what she is used to, and that is what maybe she has been doing, so let her not treat everyone like herself. . . . I am not like her. I don't believe in these things. Where's her sense of democracy when 57 percent of the Parliament vote for me, and she says she is not prepared to work with me, whether in uniform or out of uniform?

Q. What do you think about President Bush saying that U.S. troops would operate unilaterally in Pakistan against al-Qaeda if necessary?

A. That will not be acceptable to Pakistan. The people of Pakistan will not accept any foreign involvement here, and I do not think it is required. We have intelligence cooperation . . . .

Q. Why can't U.S. intelligence people see A.Q. Khan [the nuclear scientist who confessed to operating a network that supplied nuclear materials and know-how to Libya, Iran and North Korea]?

A. No, it would be interference in our country. Would you like Pakistani intelligence to interfere in the U.S.? The problem with the West is that you want the developing world to do everything that you wish and desire. . . . Are we that incapable, are we that small? This is not a banana republic.

Rise up

With great powers come great responsibilities

I entirely laud the efforts of our journalists but I would like to ask a question to the media especially electronic media. After imposing the martial law in the shape of emergency, television channels were taken off air. Our so called President through PEMRA amended the “Code of Conduct” and asked the electronic media to ratify the new code of conduct in order for the channels to go on air again. Basically, the President was taking revenge with the electronic media as he did with the judiciary and sadly all the channels succumbed to Musharraf’s pressure except one. This has sent wrong signals to Musharraf and musharafeens. I ask the media where is the unity among them which they showed when Justice Chaudhry Iftikhar was removed and when Aaj and Geo offices were ransacked? Why were financial considerations all of sudden more important than freedom of press? Now that elections are round the corner and we do not have any credible media functioning fully, wouldn’t that be easy for the establishment to rig elections again. To a great extent it was the responsibility of the media to show us what actually would be happening in the elections and their resoluteness would have been a great deterrent for the establishment to rig the elections. If one channel can stand the pressures, why can’t others?

‘Live with Talat’ today at Karachi Press Club

Wednesday, Dec 12, outside the Karachi Press Club, from 6.00-8.00 pm

By Teeth Maestro on Dec 12, 2007

The People’s Resistance in collaboration with the Karachi Union of Journalists and the Karachi Press Club is organizing ‘Live with Talat’, featuring the banned Aaj television hosts Talat Hussain along with Nusrat Javeed and Mushtaq Minhas of Bolta Pakistan. The programme will take place on Wednesday, Dec 12, outside the Karachi Press Club, from 6.00-8.00 pm

Confirmed guests include: Justice (r) Wajihuddin Ahmed, Justice (r) Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim, President Sindh High Court Bar Association Justice (r) Rasheed Rizvi and advocate Noor Naz Agha, along with People’s Resistance representative Noman Qadir. The event is free and open to the public. We cordially invite members of the public and the journalists’ community to attend and form the audience at this two-hour long live public event on the pavement outside the Karachi Press Club. Since the seating arrangement for the audience is ‘farshi’, those attending may want to bring their own cushions. Volunteers will strive to ensure that traffic is not disrupted.

Pakistan’s News Media No Longer Silent, but Musharraf Has Muted His Critics

By SALMAN MASOOD and DAVID ROHDE (New York Times)

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Dec. 10 — Nearly all private television channels blacked out last month by President Pervez Musharraf’s emergency decree are back on the air. But the country’s once-thriving television news media remain largely muzzled by sweeping new restrictions that journalists and Western diplomats say stifle criticism of the government.

After the blackout cost leading channels tens of millions of dollars in lost advertising revenues, owners of all but one channel agreed to stop broadcasting the country’s highest-rated political talk shows and signed the government-ordered “code of conduct.”
And under a new ordinance, unilaterally enacted by Mr. Musharraf, television journalists face up to three years in jail for broadcasting “anything which defames or brings into ridicule the head of state” and other restrictions. The law will remain in place after Mr. Musharraf ends the state of emergency, which he has promised to do on Saturday.

“He’s getting away with it, really, because the Western support is there again,” said Talat Hussain, a popular talk show host whose program is no longer aired on two stations, "Aaj TV" or "Today TV." “There isn’t enough pressure.”

Western and Pakistani observers say Mr. Musharraf has reversed one of his greatest achievements: fostering a vibrant independent news media. His crackdown has deadened private television and radio outlets that were widely seen as increasing political awareness, educating a largely illiterate population and curbing the spread of militancy.
“The level of self-censorship is very, very high,” said a Western diplomat who asked not to be identified. “Everybody’s got the orders.”
Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman, the chief executive of the Jang Group, one of Pakistan’s largest news media companies, said he had rebuffed government requests that he fire two popular television talk show hosts on the Geo network and three investigative reporters from The News, a newspaper. He has refused to sign the code of conduct, and Geo remains the only major news network that the government has not allowed back on air.
“We are not accepting their main demands of terminating a few people,” he said, adding that the code of conduct was “absolutely illegal and arbitrary.”
Nisar Memon, Pakistan’s acting minister of information, said Geo was off the air because it had still not signed the code of conduct. He said the only restriction on which the government insisted was not airing gory pictures of suicide-bombing victims, which officials said can reduce public morale and make terrorists seem like heroes.
“The ball is in their court,” he said.
Tension between Mr. Musharraf and media organizations emerged this spring in the political and legal fight surrounding Mr. Musharraf’s suspension of Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, the chief justice of the Pakistani Supreme Court.
Extensive coverage of opposition lawyers and political rallies, as well as live broadcasts of Mr. Chaudhry’s speeches, angered government officials. They accused the independent news media of becoming an opposition mouthpiece, indulging in sensationalism and insulting the Pakistani military.
Last month, days before Mr. Chaudhry’s court was widely expected to declare Mr. Musharraf ineligible to serve a third term, Mr. Musharraf declared emergency rule, suspended the Constitution, fired the Supreme Court and blocked all independent news broadcasts.

Since Mr. Musharraf allowed independent channels on cable television in 2002, more than a dozen private networks have opened and become popular. The stations are beehives of activity where young Pakistanis push cultural norms and express views rarely heard on state-run television.
Politics, culture and relationships are avidly discussed on call-in shows. Conservative and moderate religious leaders debate Islamic fundamentalism. Political talk shows have become the highest-rated programs in the country. Pakistanis revel in hearing their own voices and seeing officials held accountable for their actions.
The shift toward openness in the news media has attracted international praise. Western diplomats have called for an end to the restrictions on Geo, which means “live” and is thought to be the most popular cable channel in Pakistan. Two years ago, Business Week magazine named Mr. Rahman one of Asia’s top 25 innovators. Today, he is Mr. Musharraf’s top media target.
The government’s main leverage, according to Mr. Rahman, has been financial. When he blacked out news channels last month, Mr. Musharraf also suspended the broadcast of three Geo entertainment and sports channels, which carry little news but are major sources of revenue.
When Geo broadcast its news programs via satellite from studios in Dubai, Pakistani officials persuaded government officials there to temporarily block the broadcast. Mr. Rahman estimates that he has lost $17 million to $18 million in advertising revenues.
Television journalists say owners of other private television networks have gradually caved in to government pressure and stopped broadcasting critical talk shows. Financial considerations, they say, have outweighed journalistic ones.
“News is not being covered objectively, but according to the wishes of the government,” said Kashif Abbasi, whose popular talk show no longer airs on the ARY One World channel. “There is vigorous self-censorship after strong words from the government.”
Syed Anwar Mehmood, the secretary of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, said the government was not exerting pressure on television channels, especially Geo, to fire talk show hosts who were critical of the government. “Absolute trash,” he said.
“It is up to the channels and their owners to decide when these talk shows go back on air,” Mr. Mehmood said. “Maybe they are having a breather.”

Faiz Ahmad Faiz

Hum dekhenge
Lazim hai ke hum bhi dekhenge
Woh din ke jis ka waada hai
Jo loh-e-azl pe likha hai
Hum dekhenge

Jab zulm-o-sitam ke koh-e-garaan
Rui ki tarah ud jayenge
Hum mehkumoon ke paun tale
Yeh dharti dhad dhad dhadkagi
Aur ehl-e-hukum ke sar upar
Jab bijli kad kad kadkegi
Hum dekhenge

Jab arz-e-khuda ke Kabe se
Sab but uthwaye jayenge
Hum ahl-e-safa mardood-e-haram
Masnad pe bithaye jayenge
Sab taaj uchale jayenge
Sab takht giraye jayenge

Bas naam rahega Allah ka
Jo ghayab bhi hai hazir bhi
Jo nazir bhi hai manzar bhi
Uthega analhaq ka naara
Jo main bhi hoon aur tum bhi ho
Aur raaj karegi khalq-e-khuda
Jo main bhi hoon aur tum bhi ho

Hum dekhenge
Lazim hai ke hum bhi dekhenge
Hum dekhenge

What kind of men would defy the Kings?...

What kind of men would defy the Kings?...

Sir, we aren't respectable anywhere anymore...with you we lost that respect too.

"I did not kill that man. My God is aware of it. I am big enough to admit it if I had done it. That admission would have been less of an ordeal and humiliation than this barbarous trial. I am a Moslem. A Moslem's fate is in the hands of God Almighty. I can face Him with a clear conscience and tell Him that I rebuilt His Islamic state of Pakistan from ashes into a respectable nation"

ZULFIKAR ALI BHUTTO

US on Pakistan's campaign trail

By Syed Saleem Shahzad (www.atimes.com)

KARACHI - United States ambassador to Pakistan Anne W Patterson made a direct appearance on Pakistan's political stage on Monday with a strong call for all political parties to participate in the national elections scheduled for January 8.

She personally met with several politicians, including Nawaz Sharif, and insisted that he take part in the polls. Former premier Sharif, recently returned from years in exile, has said that he,


KARACHI - United States ambassador to Pakistan Anne W Patterson made a direct appearance on Pakistan's political stage on Monday with a strong call for all political parties to participate in the national elections scheduled for January 8.

She personally met with several politicians, including Nawaz Sharif, and insisted that he take part in the polls. Former premier Sharif, recently returned from years in exile, has said that he,
along with some other parties, might boycott the vote.

This open intervention by a senior US diplomat follows prolonged backroom efforts by the George W Bush administration to dictate Pakistan's strategic and domestic political issues, as well as matters related to foreign policy, such as Kashmir, to bring Islamabad in line with the US-led "war on terror" and its regional policy on Iran and Afghanistan for the remaining year or so of Bush's term.

The US envoy's direct role comes as civil society is demanding the reinstatement and release of about 60 judges sacked and detained by President General Pervez Musharraf on November 3 on the eve of a decision by the Supreme Court on the validity of Musharraf's victory in presidential elections. Replacement judges picked by Musharraf upheld the poll results and last week he was sworn in as a civilian president.

There are strong concerns that without an independent judiciary, free and fair elections cannot be held next month. Indeed, all opposition parties suspect that the elections will be "engineered" and former premier Benazir Bhutto even predicted that 25,000 polling stations would return the former ruling Pakistan Muslim League Quaid-i-Azam. Full Story

What kind of men would defy the Kings?...

How U.S. and Allies are looking at Pakistan

Calculating the Risks in Pakistan

U.S. War Games Weigh Options for Securing Nuclear Stockpile

By Thomas E. Ricks

Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, December 2, 2007

A small group of U.S. military experts and intelligence officials convened in Washington for a classified war game last year, exploring strategies for securing Pakistan's nuclear arsenal if the country's political institutions and military safeguards began to fall apart.

The secret exercise -- conducted without official sponsorship from any government agency, apparently due to the sensitivity of its subject -- was one of several such games the U.S. government has conducted in recent years examining various options and scenarios for Pakistan's nuclear weapons: How many troops might be required for a military intervention in Pakistan? Could Pakistani nuclear bunkers be isolated by saturating the surrounding areas with tens of thousands of high-powered mines, dropped from the air and packed with anti-tank and anti-personnel munitions? Or might such a move only worsen the security of Pakistan's arsenal?

For several years the U.S. government has sought to help Pakistan improve its weapons safeguards, spending tens of millions of dollars since 2001 to boost the security of the country's nuclear bunkers. However, the issue has gained greater urgency in recent weeks as Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf's move to declare a state of emergency and suspend the constitution plunged the country into street clashes and political turmoil. Although U.S. officials express confidence in the current security measures, the more they examine the risks, the more they realize that there are no good answers, said Robert B. Oakley, a former U.S. ambassador to Pakistan. "Everybody's scrambling on this," Oakley said.

The conclusion of last year's game, said one participant, was that there are no palatable ways to forcibly ensure the security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons -- and that even studying scenarios for intervention could worsen the risks by undermining U.S.-Pakistani cooperation. "It's an unbelievably daunting problem," said this participant, a former Pentagon official who asked not to be identified because of the game's secrecy. The contingency plans that do exist, he added, are at the headquarters of U.S. Central Command in Tampa, and are in "very close hold." Even so, he said, planners really haven't developed answers for how to deal with nuclear weapons stashed in Pakistan's big cities and high mountain ranges.

"The bottom line is, it's the nightmare scenario," said retired Marine Col. Gary Anderson, who participated in an earlier exercise that simulated a breakup of Pakistan. "It has loose nukes, hard to find, potentially in the hands of Islamic extremists, and there aren't a lot of good military options."

Analysts caution that Musharraf's recent moves -- including stepping down as army chief and setting a timeline for restoring constitutional rule -- haven't ended the risks of further instability. "These are very half-hearted gestures," said Anita Weiss, author of "Power and Civil Society in Pakistan" and a professor at the University of Oregon. "Pakistan is not yet where we can say things have been resolved."

An expert on Pakistani terrorism who did not attend last year's war game but learned about some of its conclusions said that senior U.S. officials "weren't pleased with what the game told them; they were quite shocked." He spoke on the condition of anonymity because, he said, the U.S. efforts related to securing Pakistan's nuclear arsenal involve "really, really black SAPs" -- that is, among the most highly guarded "special access programs."

Even some steps that might appear to offer a short-term solution could backfire in the long run, warned Milton Bearden, a former CIA station chief in the Pakistani capital of Islamabad who now does some work for the Pakistani government on trade issues. "When you talk about U.S. troops going in and taking out Pakistani nukes," he said, "that means we've just invaded another country."

Others maintain that simply holding the games may worsen the situation by antagonizing Pakistanis and by encouraging the Pakistani government to take countermeasures. Retired Pakistani Brigadier Feroz Khan, who until 2001 was the second-ranking officer in the Pakistani army's strategic plans division, which oversees the control of nuclear weapons, said in an interview that he has heard of the studies and war games carried out "in various U.S. government agencies," and thinks they are "very dangerous."

"You might just want to remember Desert One," he added, referring to the botched U.S. mission to rescue American hostages in Iran in 1980.

As a result of U.S. government studies of the nuclear issue, Pakistani officials have come to believe a U.S. intervention "is a real threat now," Khan said. The Pakistani military almost certainly has taken steps to forestall such a raid, he said, such as creating phony bunkers that contain dummy nuclear warheads. He estimated that Pakistan's current arsenal now contains about 80 to 120 genuine warheads, roughly double the figure usually cited by outside experts.

"It may actually make things worse, to attempt that sort of thing," agreed Zia Mian, a Princeton University physicist and expert on nuclear proliferation in South Asia. Among other negative repercussions, he predicted, any U.S. effort to secure Pakistan's nuclear arsenal "would really increase anti-Americanism."

A concern of some proliferation experts is that in an internal breakup, a contending faction might seek to grab some of the nuclear warheads, not necessarily to use them but to wield them as a symbol of authority. "I think there is a lot of concern about this, and the less stable the government and the society become, the greater the concern," said a senior U.S. intelligence officer whose agency wouldn't permit him to speak for attribution. That said, he added in an interview, the sense inside the intelligence community currently is that the threat isn't dire. Also, he said, "The good news is that Pakistan . . . takes this very, very seriously."

But what if the government of Pakistan can't ensure the security of the nukes? "Then I would agree there are no good answers," he said. So far, Pakistan's internal crisis hasn't become widely violent, he noted. "I think if things get violent, if the government loses control, then one considers the risks in a more active way."

The war games conducted by the U.S. government and by other experts offer a recurring conclusion: Retaining the cooperation of the Pakistani government, especially its military, is crucial. "Our best bet to secure Pakistan's nuclear forces would be in a cooperative mode with the Pakistani military, not an adversarial one," said Scott Sagan, a Stanford University expert in counterproliferation.

Sagan argued that mere contemplation of a U.S. intervention might actually increase the chances of terrorists acquiring a nuclear warhead. He said that in a crisis, the Pakistani government might begin to move its nuclear weapons from secure but known sites to more secret but less-secure locations. "If Pakistan fears they may be attacked," he said, then the Pakistani military has an incentive "to take them out of the bunkers and put them out in the countryside."

In such locations, Sagan concluded, the weapons would be more vulnerable to capture by bad actors. "It ironically increases the likelihood of terrorist seizure," said Sagan, who in the past has advised the Pentagon on nuclear strategy. He noted that Pakistan moved some of its arsenal in September 2001, when it feared it might be attacked.

But Khan, the retired Pakistani brigadier, said that Sagan's fears are misplaced. The weapons "are in secure bunkers, with multiple levels of security, and active and passive measures" to mask their presence, he said. And while he conceded that the Pakistani government moved some nuclear weapons in 2001, he said the shifts made the arsenal more secure, not less.

The senior U.S. intelligence officer also disagreed with Sagan's view that Pakistani moves might make its arsenal more vulnerable. "I think that implies they haven't thought thoroughly about this," he said. "They've looked at it from all sorts of angles. . . . They think they're doing everything they can."

The bottom line, said Oakley, the veteran diplomat, is that "the only way you can safeguard them is to work very, very closely with the Pakistani army." To attack that army, he said, would erode the one institution that is keeping the weapons under control. "If you want nukes to get loose," he said, "that's the way to do it."

Israelis hit Syrian ‘nuclear bomb plant’

From Sunday Times 2 December

Uzi Mahnaimi in Tel Aviv and Michael Sheridan in Seoul

ISRAEL’S top-secret air raid on Syria in September destroyed a bomb factory assembling warheads fuelled by North Korean plutonium, a leading Israeli nuclear expert has told The Sunday Times.

Professor Uzi Even of Tel Aviv University was one of the founders of the Israeli nuclear reactor at Dimona, the source of the Jewish state’s undeclared nuclear arsenal.

“I suspect that it was a plant for processing plutonium, namely, a factory for assembling the bomb,” he said. “I think the DPRK [Democratic People’s Republic of Korea] transferred to Syria weapons-grade plutonium in raw form, that is nuggets of easily transported metal in protective cans. I think the shaping and casting of the plutonium was supposed to be in Syria.”

All governments concerned - even the regime in Damascus - have tried to maintain complete secrecy about the raid.

They apparently fear that forcing a confrontation on the issue could spark a war between Israel and Syria, end the Middle East peace talks and wreck America’s extremely complex negotiations to disarm North Korea of its nuclear weapons.

The political stakes could hardly be higher. Plutonium is the element which fuelled the American atomic bomb that destroyed the Japanese city of Nagasaki on August 9, 1945.

Critics in the United States say proof that North Korea supplied such nuclear weapons material to Syria, a state technically at war with Israel, would shatter congressional confidence in the Bush administration’s diplomatic policy.

From beneath the veil of military censorship, western commentators have formed a consensus that the target was a nuclear reactor under construction.

But Even said that purely from scientific observation, he had reached a different conclusion - that it was a nuclear bomb factory, posing a more immediate danger to Israel. He said that satellite photos of the site, taken before the Israeli strike on September 6, showed no sign of the cooling towers and chimneys characteristic of nuclear reactors. Full Story

Brace it Pakistan

Bush handed blueprint to seize Pakistan's nuclear arsenal

· Architect of Iraq surge draws up takeover options
· US fears army's Islamists might grab weapons

Adrian Levy and Cathy Scott-Clark
Saturday December 1, 2007
The Guardian

The man who devised the Bush administration's Iraq troop surge has urged the US to consider sending elite troops to Pakistan to seize its nuclear weapons if the country descends into chaos.

In a series of scenarios drawn up for Pakistan, Frederick Kagan, a former West Point military historian, has called for the White House to consider various options for an unstable Pakistan.

These include: sending elite British or US troops to secure nuclear weapons capable of being transported out of the country and take them to a secret storage depot in New Mexico or a "remote redoubt" inside Pakistan; sending US troops to Pakistan's north-western border to fight the Taliban and al-Qaida; and a US military occupation of the capital Islamabad, and the provinces of Punjab, Sindh and Baluchistan if asked for assistance by a fractured Pakistan military, so that the US could shore up President Pervez Musharraf and General Ashfaq Kayani, who became army chief this week.

Article continues

---

---

"These are scenarios and solutions. They are designed to test our preparedness. The United States simply could not stand by as a nuclear-armed Pakistan descended into the abyss," Kagan, who is with the American Enterprise Institute, a thinktank with strong ideological ties to the Bush administration, told the Guardian. "We need to think now about our options in Pakistan,"

Kagan argued that the rise of Sunni extremism in Pakistan, coupled with the proliferation of al-Qaida bases in the north-west, posed a real possibility of terrorists staging a coup that would give them access to a nuclear device. He also noted how sections of Pakistan's military and intelligence establishment continued to be linked to Islamists and warned that the army, demoralised by having to fight in Waziristan and parts of North-West Frontier Province, might retreat from the borders, leaving a vacuum that would be filled by radicals. Worse, the military might split, with a radical faction trying to take over Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

Kagan accepted that the Pakistani military was not in the grip of Islamists. "Pakistan's officer corps and ruling elites remain largely moderate. But then again, Americans felt similarly about the shah's regime and look what happened in 1979," he said, referring to Iran.

The scenarios received a public airing two weeks ago in an article for the New York Times by Kagan and Michael O'Hanlon, an analyst at the Brookings Institution, who has ties to the Democrats.

They have been criticised in the US as well as Pakistan, with Kagan accused of drawing up plans for another US occupation of a Muslim country.

But the scenarios are regarded with some seriousness because of Kagan's influence over thinking in the Bush administration as the architect of the Iraq troop surge, which is conceded to have brought some improvements in security.

A former senior state department official who works as a contractor with the government and is familiar with current planning on Pakistan told the Guardian: "Governments are supposed to think the unthinkable. But these ideas, coming as they do from a man of significant influence in Washington's militarist camp, seem prescriptive and have got tongues wagging - even in a town like Washington, built on hyperbole."

Kagan said he was not calling for an occupation of Pakistan.

"I have been arguing the opposite. We cannot invade, only work with the consent of elements of the Pakistan military," he said.

"But we do have to calculate how to quantify and then respond to a crisis that is potentially as much a threat as Soviet tanks once were. Pakistan may be the next big test."

The political and security crises there have led the Bush administration to conclude that Pakistan has become a more dangerous place than it was before Musharraf took over in the coup of October 1999.

One Pentagon official said last week that the defence department had indeed been war-gaming some of Kagan's scenarios.

A report by Kagan and O'Hanlon in April highlighted their argument.

"The only serious response to this international environment is to develop armed forces capable of protecting America's vital interests throughout this dangerous time," it said.

But in Pakistan, aides to Musharraf yesterday dismissed Kagan's study as "hyperbole".