Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Lawyers in Pakistan fight, literally, for the law
To whoever posted the comments urging me to put up something about the lawyers in Pakistan who have taken to the streets: You are totally right. This is a remarkable situation.
In short, the head of the military junta in Pakistan, General Musharraf, seized power in a coup in 1999. He has enjoyed strong support (in the form of billions of dollars) from the Bush administration, largely in the hopes that he would fight al-Quada and deliver up Osama bin Laden. He appears, at present, to be losing the fight against religious extremists.
He also, until recently, was losing the fight to essentially concentrate power in himself, as the Supreme Court repeatedly limited his powers. Musharraf's response was to remove the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. This action, which seems to be without a legal basis, inspired the lawyers to rise up and take to the streets. These lawyers have quite literally picked up the fight-- even from the roof of the Supreme Court building. Now Musharraf has detained thousands of lawyers in an attempt to restore order-- or at least to monopolize the creation of disorder.
I once was in Paris when the travel agents were rioting over new travel restrictions. I remember thinking there was something quaint about that until I saw them on tv-- they were really busting things up. This has a bit of the same air about it, but involves a much more fundamental and important issue.
How much would we do to defend the Constitution? Could it ever include actions like this? If not, what is it that we are really defending?
Comments:
<< Home
Thanks for acknowledging what is going on over there. I guess it's somewhat sad that I did not feel as impassioned by the recent Burma episode (although it did upset me), but the Pakistan issue really hit home for me as an attorney. Yes, there were stories about attorneys throwing stones from the roof of the courthouse, but I don't know if the majority of the protests had violent undertones (at least not on the part of the lawyers). These guys are standing up for the rule of law and are being beaten and thrown in jail for it. As attorneys, I think we owe it to our Pakistani counterparts to at least condemn what is going on and show our support. The Texas Bar joined the ABA in doing so. www.texasbar.com
I've long thought that Pakistan posed more strategic problems for the US than Iraq or Afganistan. Now what do we do as a country that ostensibly wants to spread democracy throughout the middle east but needs Pakistan to fight terrorism? Seems like another example of the kind of hipocracy that has the world not thinking so highly of the US.
I've long thought that Pakistan posed more strategic problems for the US than Iraq or Afganistan. Now what do we do as a country that ostensibly wants to spread democracy throughout the middle east but needs Pakistan to fight terrorism? Seems like another example of the kind of hipocracy that has the world not thinking so highly of the US.
# posted by 
: 10:04 AM
: 10:04 AM
I wonder if the lawyers in the our country would protest in outrage if our own constitution were dismembered and ignored in a blatant power grab by the executive branch. Oh wait...
Actually, the U.S. has been diplomatically active in trying to control the military juntas in Pakistan and Burma. That pressure, along with the diplomatic pressure of other nations, is likely one reason things haven't gotten a lot worse. US "hypocracy" isn't in play here, and I think the bigger hit to our credibility in the world is when our allies abandon us for their own reasons (like oil $) than when we find ourselves balancing bad alternatives. Int'l decision makers are generally sophisticated enough to understand our schizophrenic nature as a democracy and the real challenges we face as int'l actor.
Tj: lawyers here are protesting what they believe are violations of our Constitution. You think all those dudes in Guantanamo are pro se? We're just fortunate enough that our protests can still be heard in a courtroom, that's all.
Tj: lawyers here are protesting what they believe are violations of our Constitution. You think all those dudes in Guantanamo are pro se? We're just fortunate enough that our protests can still be heard in a courtroom, that's all.
# posted by : 11:51 AM
: 11:51 AM
Anon 10:15 --You could have just sic'ed my mispelled word and it would have had the same condescending effect.
# posted by : 12:47 PM
: 12:47 PM
I quoted it because I don't think that US foreign policy is hypocritical just because it is sometimes contradictory. That I adopted your misspelling was unconscious. Sorry, the air quotes didn't translate the way I intended. Didn't mean to be a jerk. No hard feelings?
# posted by : 3:50 PM
: 3:50 PM
Seeing the images of lawyers in suits and ties being beaten by police/military because of (what I understood as) speaking out to protect their Constitution (or rule of civilian law, generally) struck a chord with me.
The images caused me to question how far I would go to adhere to my oath to uphold the United States Constitution.
In recent years I have observed what I believe to be zealous advocacy used by the executive branch to come up with tortured constructions of our Constitution--as compared to good faith interpretations. Other than complaining of it privately, I have not taken any affirmative steps to push back (other than paying my bar dues).
But then again, for the most part, our civil justice system has not been affected.
Is there a moral dilemma here? Or am I just dealing with youthful idealism?
Post a Comment
The images caused me to question how far I would go to adhere to my oath to uphold the United States Constitution.
In recent years I have observed what I believe to be zealous advocacy used by the executive branch to come up with tortured constructions of our Constitution--as compared to good faith interpretations. Other than complaining of it privately, I have not taken any affirmative steps to push back (other than paying my bar dues).
But then again, for the most part, our civil justice system has not been affected.
Is there a moral dilemma here? Or am I just dealing with youthful idealism?
# posted by : 12:01 PM
: 12:01 PM << Home
