Supporters of the Pakistan People's Party hold a candle vigil in the memory of slain former premier, Benazir Bhutto, in Lahore, Dec. 31.

Pakistan is reeling in the aftermath of Benazir Bhutto's murder, as anger and overwhelming sadness drive its people towards hopelessness and violence.
In the midst of all this, the government is foolishly trying to distort the facts surrounding Bhutto's killing by trying to shift the blame from its own incompetence and possible involvement.
Without credible elections, restoration of the independent judiciary and effective curbs on the activities of the country's intelligence agencies in internal affairs, Pakistan cannot be rescued from a certain slide into more chaos.
Pakistan's history is full of cover-ups and Bhutto's murder is proving to be no different. Innumerable acts of violence creating choreographed instability in the country, abrupt dismissals of various governments and assassinations of many political and military leaders remain uninvestigated, or unresolved and shrouded in mystery.
Repeated martial laws and military interference in politics is the leading cause behind Pakistan's failure to develop democratic institutions and a culture of accountability.
An "insecurity" complex inspired the country's military to meddle in regional conflicts and pursue a secretive "foreign policy", for which the country is paying through its nose today.
Shortsighted and uninformed policy decisions of the United States and the west, pertaining to Pakistan in particular and south-west Asia in general, further added to the problems in the region.
Coming to the present scenario, prospects of democracy started to rise when Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif returned to the country and decided to contest elections. Movement for the rule of law spearheaded by lawyers and civil society actors in response to the unlawful deposition of the chief justice, Iftikhar Chaudhry, since March 2007 was also a healthy development for the country.
However, Musharraf started backtracking on the understanding he had developed with Bhutto, as his political allies began to feel uncomfortable with the reception she was getting all across the country.
Circumstantial evidence suggests that, since mid-November, some hardliner and extremist elements within the Musharraf camp have been saying Bhutto was pursuing an "American agenda" to "topple Pakistan's army" and get rid of the nukes--a conspiracy theory.
Some Pakistani journalists and analysts closely aligned with Musharraf started producing "news analysis" to this effect soon afterwards.
Intriguingly, a video clip was also telecasted from some media outlets on November 29 showing that Islamabad police had confiscated a vehicle in the capital city with around two-dozen American M16 and Israeli Uzi guns.
Clearly, this was an attempt to suggest that the US and Israel were planning to create violence in the country. The clip zoomed in on markings on the US weapons which read: "Property of the US government".
Many media channels that deciphered the deceptive motive of the "news item" refused to run it.
Statements made by Bhutto which were critical of the role played by Dr AQ Khan in nuclear proliferation were also hyped by government media managers.
Despite all these manipulations and disinformation, her political campaign continued to gain momentum. At this point (around mid-December), Musharraf started to make statements challenging Benazir's support base and refused to accept her demands regarding election matters and provision of adequate security for her.
And then came the assassin's bullet--in a professionally executed targeted killing--raising important questions about the identity of the killers and the role of elements from within the establishment.
DAILYTIMES.COM.PK

When the hideous photographs of torture and abuse emerged from Abu Ghraib in the fall of 2004, they created a public relations disaster for the Bush administration. The White House had painstakingly worked to capitalize on the 9/11 attacks by creating a "war on terror." Never mind the absurdity of declaring war on a tactic. Central to Bush's new "war" was the portrayal of us as the good guys and al Qaeda, the Taliban, and Saddam Hussein as the bad guys.
But the Abu Ghraib photos of naked Iraqis piled on top of one another, led around on leashes like dogs shined the light on U.S. hypocrisy.
After the Abu Ghraib revelations, the Bush administration could not tolerate more bad publicity. So in 2005, the CIA destroyed several hundred hours of videotapes depicting torturous interrogations of Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, probably including water boarding.
The former U.S. official involved in discussions about the tapes reported widespread concern that "something as explosive as this would probably get out," according to the Los Angeles Times. This destruction of evidence may violate several laws. And it remains to be seen how high up the chain of command the criminality goes.
Now that the videotape scandal has come to light, Bush and his men are back in damage control mode. CIA Director Michael Hayden minimized the significance of the destruction, claiming the tapes were destroyed "only after it was determined they were no longer of intelligence value and not relevant to any internal, legislative or judicial inquiries." These claims are disingenuous.
The tapes likely portray U.S. officials engaged in torture, which violates three U.S.-ratified treaties as well as the U.S. Torture Statute and the War Crimes Act.
Bush justifies his administration's "harsh interrogation techniques" by maintaining that Zubaydah, under interrogation, fingered Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.
But according to investigative journalist Ron Suskind in his 2006 book One Percent Doctrine, it was a "walk-in" who led the CIA to Mohammed in return for a $25 million reward.
Zubaydah evidently wasn't a top al Qaeda leader. Dan Coleman, one of the FBI's leading experts on al Qaeda, said Zubaydah "knew very little about real operations, or strategy." Moreover, Zubaydah was schizophrenic, according to Coleman. "This guy is insane, certifiable split personality."
Coleman's views were echoed at the top levels of the CIA and were communicated to Bush and Cheney. But Bush scolded CIA director George Tenet, saying, "I said [Zubaydah] was important. You're not going to let me lose face on this, are you?" Zubaydah's minor role in al Qaeda and his apparent insanity were kept secret.
In response to the torture, Zubaydah told his interrogators about myriad terrorist targets al Qaeda had in its sights: the Brooklyn Bridge, the Statute of Liberty, shopping malls, banks, supermarkets, water systems, nuclear plants, and apartment buildings.
Al Qaeda was close to building a crude nuclear bomb, Zubaydah reported. None of this was corroborated but the Bush gang reacted to each report zealously.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the government's duty to provide criminal defendants with any evidence in the government's possession that might tend to exonerate the defendant or impeach the prosecutor's case. Zacarias Moussaoui tried to subpoena Zubaydah to testify at his trial.
On May 9, 2003, Assistant U.S. Attorneys David Novak and David Raskin lied to U.S. District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema, who presided over Moussaoui's trial. When the judge asked "whether the interrogations are being recorded in any format"?, the U.S. Attorneys, evidently relying on information from the CIA, said "No". This is obstruction of justice.
When Zubaydah and al-Nashiri go before the military commissions, they will undoubtedly raise their torture as a defense to whatever crimes they face. Yet the evidence of that torture has been destroyed by the government.
There was no way of knowing whether these tapes could have intelligence value in the future. Indeed, the government defied the 2003 and 2004 demands of the 9/11 Commission by failing to turn over the videotaped interrogations.
Now the CIA is parsing words by claiming the commission never directly asked for videotapes. "We asked for every single thing they had," commission co-chairman Thomas Kean said.
Marjorie Cohn
COUNTERPUNCH.COM

Lebanese troops patrol a street leading to the Lebanese parliament in downtown Beirut, Dec. 27.

The year 2007 has ended in much the same manner that it began, with a swirl of mutual recrimination. This time the melee was punctuated by an especially unsightly exchange between Speaker Nabih Berri and Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, two people who should be setting examples of maturity and good taste for their respective allies and supporters.
Instead, they have capped a shameful year with a joint performance that can only bore, exasperate, and or frighten sensible Lebanese of all backgrounds, ages, sects and political leanings.
The people of this country--whether they live here or not--deserve better. Every day, resident Lebanese are force-fed a diet of empty rhetoric that has depressed their spending, but not their enjoyment.
Their expatriate counterparts watch from a distance and periodically make the trek to their homeland to be with family for occasions like Adha, Christmas and New Year's despite the risks involved.
The concerns of both groups are emphatically not about the distribution of Cabinet seats, arcane discussions of constitutional clauses, or which of the government and the opposition is more to blame for the impasse.
The Lebanese have far more important issues to ponder, like the availability of economic opportunities, the safety of their loved ones, and the very survival of their country. Wherever they are, they work to ensure the essentials of life and wonder how their leaders could be so heartless as to stand in their way.
It is unfortunate and even deplorable that officials in places like Damascus, Paris and Washington have been willing to use Lebanon as a bargaining chip. Ruthlessness in such quarters is not, however, unexpected. Foreign governments pursue what they regard as their own interests, after all, and they do so with a mixture of ignorance, myopia, and wishful thinking.
There are no such easy explanations for the behavior of Lebanon's own political players. This is their country, and instead of serving it, they have become tools in the hands of outside powers.
The egomaniacal errand boys who populate Lebanon's political landscape should have learned by now that their foreign masters cannot be relied upon to help in a crisis--only to help create one. George W. Bush has made promises to his Lebanese surrogates that have encouraged them to take uncompromising stances, then failed to back them up.
Bashar Assad has failed utterly to understand that a ruined Lebanon is as great a threat to his country as it is to anyone else's, but Bush may not be able to locate Lebanon on a map, and Assad may be ideologically opposed to its existence as a sovereign state.
What is the excuse of Lebanese politicians who know all too well how vulnerable their country is to the regional equation, and how precious it is as an example of coexistence and pluralism?
No one--Lebanese or foreign--can rule this country alone. Those who would dispute this fact are victims of either their own delusions or someone else's. And to "prove" their equally preposterous points, both sides have been utterly unfeeling about the wants and needs of their compatriots.
Rather than expending their energy on the search for solutions and or the articulation of realistic policies, they have dedicated themselves to fratricide. If only they could agree on a New Year's resolution to do so in a locked room, the rest of us could get on with our lives.
Dailystar.com.lb