newspic.JPG (image)
![[news1.JPG]](http://bp2.blogger.com/_DjgNUyJmQnU/R4HzIpY5uMI/AAAAAAAABfo/rFG8QX9_V88/s1600-h/news1.JPG)
Blogged with Flock
Monday, January 7, 2008
PPP now wants 'Restoration of Judiciary'
(The News, Jan, 7): The jolted leadership of Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) is now talking of the restoration of pre-November 3 judiciary in accordance with the will and statement of its martyred leader Benazir Bhutto, which she made on the day of lifting of emergency, but in her own way.
The PPP will have no problem with the restoration of pre-November 3 judiciary which was sacked after the imposition of emergency by the then General Pervez Musharraf if it is done by the parliamentary committees comprising both government and opposition members in the new parliament.
A senior PPP leader when asked about the stance of her party said the party wants complete independence of the judiciary.This point has become the only issue on which the Charter of Demands between the PPP and the APDM was stuck and abandoned.
The text of the Charter, obtained by ‘The News’, shows the APDM wanted this language:
The ARD position was:“All Supreme Court and High Court judges who were removed on 3rd November 2007 should be restored.”
When the PPP leader was asked about this and her party’s planning regarding this, she said that this issue might be discussed in today’s (Wednesday) Central Executive Committee meeting in Naudero. She, however, said that her party would need some time regarding this issue as still they are in mourning.“The courage and principled position taken by the judges of the superior judiciary who did not take oath under the PCO is recognised. The declaration of emergency dated 3rd November, 2007 issued by the chief of army staff be withdrawn. The Provisional Constitution Order be revoked and independence of the judiciary restored.”
She disclosed that her party has decided in life time of Benazir Bhutto that even the new appointments in the superior judiciary would be made by the parliamentary committee comprising the parliamentarians from both the government and opposition and there should be no role of any dictator or any one man.
She said that her party wants that this parliamentary committee should even consider the restoration of judges sacked for not taking oath under the first PCO of the then General, Pervez Musharraf, in 2000.
On the other hand Makhdoom Javed Hashmi, vice-president of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) told The News Tuesday that restoration of deposed judges would be on top of his party’s campaign in the last six days of electioneering. He said that he hoped that once in the new parliament PPP would definitely support the restoration of sacked judges.
Blogged with Flock
Farewell to wadi Bua
Thought Stream: Farewell to wadi Bua:
"By Fatima BhuttoLARKANA (The News) — My aunt (Benazir Bhutto) and I had a complicated relationship. That is the truth, the sad truth. The last fifteen years were not one we spent as friends or as relatives, that is also the truth. But this week, I too want to remember her differently. I want to remember her differently because I must. I can’t lose faith in this country, my home. I can’t believe that it was for nothing, that violence in its purest form is so cruel and so unforgiving. I can’t accept that this is what we have come to. So, I must offer a farewell. One that is written in tears and anger but one that comes from a" read more
The Destabilization of Pakistan
One can expect that Washington will push for a compliant political leadership, with no commitment to the national interest, a leadership which will serve US imperial interests, while concurrently contributing under the disguise of "decentralization", to the weakening of the central government and the fracture of Pakistan's fragile federal structure. interesting??? read here...
Anglo-American Ambitions behind the Assassination of Benazir Bhutto and the Destabilization of Pakistan
It has been known for months that the Bush-Cheney administration and its allies have been manuevering to strengthen their political control of Pakistan, paving the way for the expansion and deepening of the “war on terrorism” across the region. The assassination of Benazir Bhutto does not change this agenda. In fact, it simplifies Bush-Cheney’s options.
Seeding chaos with a pretext
“Delivering democracy to the Muslim world” has been the Orwellian rhetoric used to mask Bush-Cheney’s application of pressure and force, its dramatic attempt at reshaping of the Pakistani government (into a joint Bhutto/Sharif-Musharraf) coalition, and backdoor plans for a military intervention. Various American destabilization plans, known for months by officials and analysts, proposed the toppling of Pakistan's military.
The assassination of Bhutto appears to have been anticipated. There were even reports of “chatter” among US officials about the possible assassinations of either Pervez Musharraf or Benazir Bhutto, well before the actual attempts took place.
As succinctly summarized in Jeremy Page’s article, "Who Killed Benazir Bhutto? The Main Suspects", the main suspects are 1) “Pakistani and foreign Islamist militants who saw her as a heretic and an American stooge”, and 2) the Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, a virtual branch of the CIA. Bhutto’s husband Asif Ali Zardari directly accused the ISI of being involved in the October attack.
The assassination of Bhutto has predictably been blamed on “Al-Qaeda”, without mention of fact that Al-Qaeda itself is an Anglo-American military-intelligence operation.
more...
Blogged with Flock
Manufacturing ‘truths’
By: Hajrah Mumtaz
Dr Paul Joseph Goebbels, Minister for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda under Adolf Hitler’s Nationalist Socialist regime, said:
By way of background noise, references made by politicians both in the King’s Party and out of it are gnawing away at the idea of the federation and are hardening provincial divides. At the same time, the citizenry is angrily debating whether democracy is at all relevant to Pakistan’s needs since earlier democratic governments fell far short of standards.
In these bleak times, people are taking sides on the basis of what they know to be true. Depending on their sympathies, for example, some of us ‘know’ that X, Y or Z was corrupt or inefficient, while others ‘know’ that A, B and C acted out of the best intentions. We ‘know’ this because we read it in the newspapers, saw it on television, heard it from inside sources and wagged our heads in agreement during drawing room conversations.
Goebbels’ words indicate that what we ‘know’ may not necessarily be the ‘truth’ — if, indeed, any such animal exists — and may in fact be the result of a vast flood of propaganda and lies that have been insisted upon for so long that they have become the truth.
As Herman and Chomsky pointed out in Manufacturing Consent, state authorities or governments employ indoctrination techniques and propaganda to bolster support for their policies. Significantly, the crux of the book is how the media, on purpose or unwittingly, become the tool through which the lies and half-truths are disseminated.
The military has been in power in Pakistan for most of the country’s 60-year history and shows no indication of ever wanting to give it up. The assertions that certain extra-constitutional steps were “in the best interests of the country” must be viewed in this light. At the same time, the reputations of a number of politicians and parties must also be revisited with this knowledge.
Most of us ‘know’ that our democratic governments were tainted by institutionalised corruption on a massive scale, because this is what we have been repeatedly told for the past eight years in particular, and over decades in general. (By the same token, I wonder, do we ‘know’ that non-democratic governments were squeaky clean? Or is that just not talked about?)
It is worth examining who was doing the telling, and who was in power long enough to repeat the same shady ‘truths’ over and over again. Could this government be in the business of manufacturing such ‘truths’? It is entirely possible that our ‘knowledge’ is the result of a massive propaganda machine that has consistently run defamation and character assassination campaigns against civilian political leaders. Over the years, little proof has been offered by way of explanation while damning such politicians.
True, ample evidence of maladministration and corruption has been presented by the press. Little of this evidence, however, has been the result of independent investigative journalism. Most of the news reports upon the actions or statements of others. For example, when the press reports the dismissal of a government under charges of corruption or maladministration, the allegation is being levelled by the individual or institution doing the dismissing, not the press itself. Furthermore, such allegations are never proved or disproved through a credible trial. And what’s more, even if the press raised suspicions of misrule through solid investigative journalism, it would still be up to the courts to pronounce upon the veracity of the allegations.
Ironically, it was also Goebbels who wrote:
The Big Lie theory, as such methods of indoctrination have been referred to, is a propaganda technique first defined by Hitler in Mien Kampf as a lie so “colossal” that no one would be able to believe that someone “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.” While Hitler used this theory with reference to his view of Judaism, it is amply in evidence in Pakistan today. We have, after all, a government audacious enough to first present a theory as ludicrous as a murderous sun-roof handle, and then admit that the statement was made without taking all evidence into account. Fortuitously, in this case there was hard evidence to disprove the government’s claim otherwise it may easily have gone down in the annals of history.
Furthermore, it is worth pondering the etymology of the word ‘media’. It is the plural for ‘medium’, which since the early 17th century has been used in the context of an ‘intermediate agency’ and carries the additional meaning of ‘medium of communication.’ In this broader sense, the media include not only the formal agencies that disseminate information and ideas — newspapers, television etc — but also the informal systems through which, generally speaking, each of us knows what he knows. These informal systems are the verbal avenues for the exchange of ideas, such as debate, discussion and even rumour or gossip, since these too are amongst the streams of information that together constitute the well of knowledge available to any individual.
Such informal streams of the media can be and are extensively used by Pakistan’s well-connected, entrenched and institutionalised propaganda machine. The power of the media in terms of shaping the perspectives and perceptions of individuals is not only immense but in terms of the informal media, also truly frightening because of its nebulous nature.
The thinking person must ask himself, “How do I know what I know, and how do I know whether it is true?”
Post-script:
— hmumtaz@dawn.com
Dr Paul Joseph Goebbels, Minister for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda under Adolf Hitler’s Nationalist Socialist regime, said:
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”The words hold relevance for Pakistan today. After a turbulent year that in itself augured ill for the country’s future, came the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Just over a week later, the government is engaged in a bitter blame game in the attempt to deflect responsibility everywhere but upon its own minions and shadowy agencies. As the dust slowly settles, some civilian politicians have fallen towards the relative front and this has resulted in a citizenry divided: where some people are referring with disgust to the politicians’ past reputations and practices, others are reacting sympathetically.
By way of background noise, references made by politicians both in the King’s Party and out of it are gnawing away at the idea of the federation and are hardening provincial divides. At the same time, the citizenry is angrily debating whether democracy is at all relevant to Pakistan’s needs since earlier democratic governments fell far short of standards.
In these bleak times, people are taking sides on the basis of what they know to be true. Depending on their sympathies, for example, some of us ‘know’ that X, Y or Z was corrupt or inefficient, while others ‘know’ that A, B and C acted out of the best intentions. We ‘know’ this because we read it in the newspapers, saw it on television, heard it from inside sources and wagged our heads in agreement during drawing room conversations.
Goebbels’ words indicate that what we ‘know’ may not necessarily be the ‘truth’ — if, indeed, any such animal exists — and may in fact be the result of a vast flood of propaganda and lies that have been insisted upon for so long that they have become the truth.
As Herman and Chomsky pointed out in Manufacturing Consent, state authorities or governments employ indoctrination techniques and propaganda to bolster support for their policies. Significantly, the crux of the book is how the media, on purpose or unwittingly, become the tool through which the lies and half-truths are disseminated.
The military has been in power in Pakistan for most of the country’s 60-year history and shows no indication of ever wanting to give it up. The assertions that certain extra-constitutional steps were “in the best interests of the country” must be viewed in this light. At the same time, the reputations of a number of politicians and parties must also be revisited with this knowledge.
Most of us ‘know’ that our democratic governments were tainted by institutionalised corruption on a massive scale, because this is what we have been repeatedly told for the past eight years in particular, and over decades in general. (By the same token, I wonder, do we ‘know’ that non-democratic governments were squeaky clean? Or is that just not talked about?)
It is worth examining who was doing the telling, and who was in power long enough to repeat the same shady ‘truths’ over and over again. Could this government be in the business of manufacturing such ‘truths’? It is entirely possible that our ‘knowledge’ is the result of a massive propaganda machine that has consistently run defamation and character assassination campaigns against civilian political leaders. Over the years, little proof has been offered by way of explanation while damning such politicians.
True, ample evidence of maladministration and corruption has been presented by the press. Little of this evidence, however, has been the result of independent investigative journalism. Most of the news reports upon the actions or statements of others. For example, when the press reports the dismissal of a government under charges of corruption or maladministration, the allegation is being levelled by the individual or institution doing the dismissing, not the press itself. Furthermore, such allegations are never proved or disproved through a credible trial. And what’s more, even if the press raised suspicions of misrule through solid investigative journalism, it would still be up to the courts to pronounce upon the veracity of the allegations.
Ironically, it was also Goebbels who wrote:
“Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play.”The point is not whether our politicians are blameless, but whether we have been offered any credible proof that they are not. Sadly, the idea of being innocent until proved guilty is not in evidence in Pakistan and any hope for it was stamped out with the dismissal of independent-minded judges.
The Big Lie theory, as such methods of indoctrination have been referred to, is a propaganda technique first defined by Hitler in Mien Kampf as a lie so “colossal” that no one would be able to believe that someone “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.” While Hitler used this theory with reference to his view of Judaism, it is amply in evidence in Pakistan today. We have, after all, a government audacious enough to first present a theory as ludicrous as a murderous sun-roof handle, and then admit that the statement was made without taking all evidence into account. Fortuitously, in this case there was hard evidence to disprove the government’s claim otherwise it may easily have gone down in the annals of history.
Furthermore, it is worth pondering the etymology of the word ‘media’. It is the plural for ‘medium’, which since the early 17th century has been used in the context of an ‘intermediate agency’ and carries the additional meaning of ‘medium of communication.’ In this broader sense, the media include not only the formal agencies that disseminate information and ideas — newspapers, television etc — but also the informal systems through which, generally speaking, each of us knows what he knows. These informal systems are the verbal avenues for the exchange of ideas, such as debate, discussion and even rumour or gossip, since these too are amongst the streams of information that together constitute the well of knowledge available to any individual.
Such informal streams of the media can be and are extensively used by Pakistan’s well-connected, entrenched and institutionalised propaganda machine. The power of the media in terms of shaping the perspectives and perceptions of individuals is not only immense but in terms of the informal media, also truly frightening because of its nebulous nature.
The thinking person must ask himself, “How do I know what I know, and how do I know whether it is true?”
Post-script:
“To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed . . .”— George Orwell, 1984.
— hmumtaz@dawn.com
Blogged with Flock
Hillary Clinton proposes joint oversight of Pakistan nukes
MANCHESTER, New Hampshire, Jan 6 (AFP) - US White House hopeful Hillary Clinton late Saturday said she would propose a joint US-British team to oversee the security of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal if she is elected president.
she said during a Democratic debate here. If elected president, the US senator said,“So far as we know right now, the nuclear technology is considered secure, but there isn't any guarantee, especially given the political turmoil going on inside Pakistan,”
This guy has proven himself a real 'Security Risk' for this country. He dragged this country into such a situation. Are we going to get rid of our insane commando or will let him to ruin this country for his own RULE ?“I would try to get Musharraf to share the security responsibility of the nuclear weapons with a delegation from the United States and, perhaps, Great Britain, so that there is some fail-safe.”
Blogged with Flock
Pakistan says it will not allow US forces to hunt militants on its soil
Source: DAWN
ISLAMABAD, Jan 6 (AP): Pakistan reiterated Sunday that it will not let American forces hunt Al-Qaeda and Taliban militants on its soil, after a news report said Washington was considering expanding U.S. military and intelligence operations into Pakistan's tribal regions. The Foreign Ministry dismissed as “speculative” a story in the New York Times on Sunday saying U.S. President George W. Bush's top security officials discussed a proposal Friday to deploy American troops to pursue militants along the Pakistan-Afghan border. “We are very clear. Nobody is going to be allowed to do anything here,” said Major General Waheed Arshad, the army's top spokesman. “The government has said it many times,” Arshad said. “No foreign forces will be allowed to operate inside Pakistan.” In Afghanistan, President Hamid Karzai's spokesman did not immediately return a call seeking comment.
Blogged with Flock
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)