The Blame !

Covering for the Americans ROEDAD KHAN The long winter of our discontent grinds on. This government acting as if it is the American surrogate in Pakistan, is busy killing its own people in the so-called war on terrorism in our tribal territory. Please, spare us the rhetoric about the war on terror. It is just so phony, such a patent ploy to divert attention from the fact that how power was usurped seven years ago. Just when you think our situation couldn't possibly get worse, the government manages to get it down another notch. In an attempt to protect the real culprits, it has blatantly accepted responsibility for the October 30 American air strike on Zia ul Islam Madrassah in Bajaur, killing 80 people including several children. The government thinks we Pakistanis are too gullible, too easily deceived, too stupid. I, for one, don't think we are all that gullible or stupid. Everyone knows who the real perpetrators of this dastardly crime against humanity are. Everyone knows that the air strike was carried out by fixed-wing US drones. Given the government's why should the nation believe you? Why blame the Pak army for a crime it did not commit? Why create hatred and disaffection against the army? What could possibly be more injurious, more insulting, more damaging to the image of our men in uniform than holding them responsible for killing their own people in Bajaur, when everybody knows who the real culprits are? All accusing figures point straight in the direction of George W. Bush. The October 30 strike will go down in our history as a black day, a day of infamy, a day when every self-respecting Pakistani must hang his head in shame. On that day, thanks to this government, America's war on terror reached Chinghai, a sleepy little village in Bajaur. Missiles rained down killing 80 persons. In the early hours of the morning, innocent blood was spilled in pursuit of Bush's ambitions and nightmares. It was not an isolated incident. It was the second such strike by US forces in Bajaur. Dead bodies lay all around the madrassah – victims of tragic and diabolical American aggression. There was no "collateral damage" this time! Call it a massacre if you like, but it was a crime against humanity. There was no Al Zwahiri in Chinghai village. There were no weapons of mass destruction there, just as there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Many questions rush to mind. Why are independent investigators and journalists not allowed to enter the area? Were the so-called militants armed at the time of the air strike? If not, why was the air strike resorted to? Were they engaged in the imminent commission of any offense? Was air strike absolutely unavoidable? Was it the only way to prevent the commission of crime? Why couldn't they be arrested? Is it correct that tribal elders from Mamond area, where the madrassah was located, were scheduled to hold a meeting to finalize an agreement with the government not to harbor local or foreign militants? Is it correct that an agreement had already been drafted by aides to the Governor NWFP? Is it correct that United States is opposed to peace agreements with the so-called militants whether in Waziristan or Bajaur? Is it correct that the air strike was intended to preempt and sabotage the agreement? Who ordered the air strike? General Musharraf or American civil or military leadership in collusion with General Musharraf? It won't be easy to get honest answers to these questions because this administration practises obsessive secrecy and suppresses truth. Since it is hard to bring the truth to the fore in this country and much is covered by mud and disinformation, is the military government prepared to hold a high level judicial inquiry to ascertain the truth? "The oriental doesn't put the same high price on life as does a Westerner. Life is plentiful, life is cheap in the orient", one of the most important things General Westmoreland ever said. No wonder, General Musharraf had no hesitation in acquiescing in the killing of innocent Pakistanis by trigger happy Americans. This cold-blooded murder of 80 unnamed, unarmed innocent citizens of Pakistan cries out to heaven for vengeance. We are a nation founded on laws and rules. What has been done is essentially to throw away the constitution and the rule book and say that the government is beyond the law, beyond scrutiny, totally unaccountable. No one in this country, including the state, has the right to kill anyone except by the authority of law. The law does not give General Musharraf the power to kill a person just because he calls him a militant or a terrorist. It is not the function of the President or the Chief of Army Staff to hold a person innocent or guilty. That is a matter for the courts to decide. The constitution states, "No persons shall be deprived of life save in accordance with law". Why was this constitutional requirement not complied with on October 30? The constitution states, "Every citizen shall have the right to assemble peacefully ". All the citizens who lost their lives in the air strike were merely exercising their constitutional right to assemble. They were unarmed. They were not members of an unlawful assembly. They had violated no law. Why were they killed? For his involvement in the cover up of the Watergate scandal, President Nixon was forced to resign and hounded out of the Oval office. Twenty-five people were sent to prison because of the abuses of his administration, and many others faced indictments, including two attorneys general of the United States and several top officials of the White House. After the fall of Nixon, David Gergen, a White House advisor to President Nixon wrote, "the received wisdom is that Watergate teaches us two basic rules about politics. One, never elect a man of low character to high office. Two, if a President and his team do make an egregious mistake, a cover up is always worse than the crime". General Musharraf alone will be held accountable for the cover up of this carnage. The legal position is quite clear. He is subject to the same criminal liability as an ordinary civilian. He may, therefore, be put on trial before any competent "civil", i.e. non-military court for any offense for which he would be triable if he were not subject to military law. His military character will not save him from standing in the dock in a civil court on the charge of murder. He cannot, anymore than a civilian, avoid responsibility for breach of the law by pleading that he broke it in the interest of national security. (Published in the Daily Nation, Lahore, Pakistan, dated 12th November, 2006)

---