A) He already re-wrote the Constitution.
B) The law allowing for the court packing even violates the Constitution that he rewrote
Well, it looks pretty fishy, but the crux of that argument is that a legal ruling would be necessary to clarify whether it is in fact unconstitutional. All the same, it does look like the checks and balances in that country aren't properly functioning. He was able to pack the courts, so I wouldn't expect an unfriendly ruling on this matter.
Nice source btw. I overall agree with the concerns of HRW and I don't like the direction that Chavez is going.
But check out another quote from their
site:
"Mr. Chairman, let me close by adding one additional country to the mix here, and that is Pakistan. I believe that Pakistan represents the most egregious, and harmful, example of a human rights double standard in American foreign policy today. Pakistan appears to have little place in President Bush's "freedom agenda." On the contrary, President Bush has repeatedly come to the defense of his friend President Musharraf against anyone who criticizes his continued dictatorial rule over Pakistan.
...
These statements appear to align the United States behind one man against virtually every decent segment of Pakistani society – against the very people in that country who are most likely to be America's friends and to support a moderate, modern course for Pakistan. This kind of approach will reinforce all of General Musharraf’s bad tendencies – not just his authoritarian crackdown, but his policy of marginalizing moderate, secular forces in the country, his political reliance on Islamists, and his consequent refusal to prevent Taliban elements from killing American troops, Afghan civilians, and opponents in Pakistan’s tribal areas. It is a classic case of muting human rights concerns to protect a security relationship. But it is in fact just as contrary to U.S. security interests as it is to America's commitment to democracy. And it is killing America’s image with the next generation of, hopefully, democratic Pakistani leaders.
We desperately need, in the coming days, clear, public statements from both the administration and the Congress urging full respect for the rule of law and judicial independence in Pakistan, the release of political detainees, media freedom, and a swift return to civilian, democratic rule. This shouldn’t be about whether the United States supports or opposes a particular leader – but it needs to be, clearly and unequivocally, about U.S. support for the institutions of democracy and law."
That statement was in June. Obviously, Musharaff has felt little pressure from the US, to respect the rule of law, and he still doesn't. Condi just made it clear that our aid will for the most part remain unhindered.
Overall I'm glad that you do have a line that Musharaff can cross and you admit to it when he does. I know you might not care for my endorsements, but I just thought I'd point that out.
I also have enjoyed your conversation with bhkad, even though I don't agree with you in many ways. But if you are going to promote US exceptionalism than the US had better well be exceptional. To me, that means more than simply promoting US interests.
