Tag: Pervez Musharraf

I sat, dumbfounded, as I watched a demonstration, en masse,
in Pakistan against the oppressive rule by that country’s strongman (and our
“ally”), Pervez Musharraf, by a group of outraged citizens. Who were they? Not
members of the typically rebellious masses (i.e., college students, factory
workers, union members, political dissidents, etc.), but a group of LAWYERS!

How could this be, I wondered. Lawyers (a status I proudly
claim) are usually part of the cosseted elite, beneficiaries of the status quo,
recipients of the government’s favors, and cogs in the wheels of justice,
government and societal processes in general. More often than not they go along
to get along as part of the power structure. They are usually well-paid,
respected (stereotype-driven prejudice to the contrary notwithstanding) and
comfortable members of the elite. Yet here they were, raucously demonstrating,
throwing rocks at (and

being beaten by) the police, and vociferously protesting the policies of
their government. Right on, brothers! Lawyers just don’t do this, I thought.
It’s contrary to their delicate constitutions, and their self-interest.

As it turns out, the Pakistani lawyers were righteously
indignant about Musharraf’s “emergency” measures, dictatorially imposed on the
country, including the suspension of the country’s constitution, cancellation of
elections, the arrest and detention of the country’s chief justice, the closure
of privately-owned broadcast media and the replacement of many of the country’s
high court’s judges with ones more to the dictator’s liking. Wow, I thought;
this sounds vaguely reminiscent of what’s happening right here, in the good ole
US of A. Bush has all but suspended the constitution (i.e., eliminating habeas
corpus, warrantlessly eavesdropping on American citizens, engaging in torture
and stacking the Supreme Court, and the inferior courts, with his ideological
kinsmen). But he doesn’t see the parallels. Indeed, in

a moment of supreme irony, Bush’s press secretary said (in reference to
Musharraf’s actions) that it was not reasonable to restrict constitutional
freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism.

Bush has relied on compliant (if not complicit) lawyers in
the justice department (headed, until recently, by the ultimate kiss ass,
Alberto Gonzales), to tell him what he wants to hear when it comes to bending or
breaking various laws and the constitution. And now it appears we will be
treated to another Bush lawyer/sycophant at the helm of that department, Michael
Mukasey, who

refused to say that a favored torture tactic, water boarding, is
unconstitutional. Nonetheless, can you imagine lawyers in this country
taking to the streets to protest our strongman’s infringements of
constitutional and human rights? I know I can’t. And yet, no one is in a better
position to protest our dictator’s policies, or has more at stake, than this
country’s legal establishment.

Musharaf has obviously taken a page from Shakespeare in
dealing with Pakistan’s lawyers. It is a favorite Shakespearean verse, often
quoted by people who hold lawyers in less than high regard, that, paraphrasing,
“the first thing we should do is kill all the lawyers.” I’ve heard this line
many times, once even from a now-deceased federal judge who uttered it,
astonishingly enough, in the courthouse elevator as several lawyers got on to
ride to the courtroom floor. I reminded him, as politely as I could, that in
addition to being a judge, he was also a lawyer and would probably go with the
rest of us (indeed, probably before us) if his prescription were to be followed.
But, the quote from Shakespeare is never cited in the context the Bard wrote it.
In fact, Dick the Butcher, a character in Henry VI, utters the remark as
part of a plot by another character in the play, Jack Cade, a rabble-rouser and
pretender to the throne of England, to take down the government. Eliminating
lawyers, according to Dick, was a necessary part of a successful revolt. Dick
and Perez obviously share the same philosophy.

In this country, far from protesting the abuses of law and
the constitution practiced by the current administration, lawyers have
shamelessly capitulated to, if not facilitated, the excesses of the Bush
administration. Whether it was John Yoo, the Justice Department lawyer (who
John Ashcroft referred to as “Dr. Yes” for his willingness to tell the White
House what it wanted to hear), who opined that whatever the president wanted to
do in a time of war (including torture) was permissible, whether or not it was
prohibited by statute or the constitution, or Scooter Libby (remember him?) who
outed a covert CIA agent in the service of his own “Dick the Butcher,” or now
Mr. Mukasey, who appears ready to immunize from prosecution for war crimes the
agents of our government who may have engaged in torture, and their superiors
(up to and including Bush) who authorized it, American lawyers (with some

notable exceptions) have been stunningly, deafeningly silent in the face of
the Bush administration’s abuses . And lawyers like Arlen Specter, Chuck Schumer
and Lindsay Graham (who also happen to be U.S. senators), have, by approving
Mukasey’s nomination, even as they professed outrage at his unwillingness to
declare water boarding torture, have ignominiously shamed their profession by
carrying the administration’s water on that nomination.

American lawyers have stood by and watched Bush nominate
candidates for the Supreme Court who swore, under oath, that they would honor
the principle of “stare decisis” (precedent), and then proceeded, in several
cases,

to violate that oath and decimate long-standing precedents. They stood by in
2000 when the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Bush vs. Gore,

one of the most political decisions in its 200 plus year existence (with the
possible exception of its DredScott pro-slavery opinion), which

robbed the winner of that election of his rightful victory. Sadly, American
lawyers have frequently been more a part of the problem in the decimation of the
rule of law in this country than part of the solution.

So I stand with my Pakistani brothers in law, in spirit if
not in body, and say, “I support your cause, because it is just.” But call me a
hypocrite, because I just don’t think I’ll be throwing any rocks (at least not
literally), manning any barricades, or suffering any police beatings over here
protesting Pervez Bush’s violations of the constitution or the rule of law over
here, anytime soon. When all is said and done, I’m afraid I’m just another
proud, and chicken, member of the establishment.