Granting immunity to Musharraf would set bad precedent Commentary
Granting immunity to Musharraf would set bad precedent
Edited by:

L. Ali Khan [Professor, Washburn University School of Law]: "It is all but certain that Pervez Musharraf – America's hireling who ordered disappearances and murdered scores of innocent men, women, and children to appease the Bush Administration's unquenchable thirst for Muslim blood – will soon step down and relinquish a high seat of power that he had unlawfully occupied for more than eight years.

The Bush administration, which itself has adopted utilitarian lawlessness at home and abroad to fight real and imagined terrorists, is working hard to find a safe exit for Musharraf. The U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan has met with the coalition leaders to demand immunity for crimes that Musharraf has committed against the judiciary and the peoples of Pakistan.

The Bush Administration's demand for Musharraf's immunity is contrary to the law of human rights, Pakistan's constitution, and American democratic values of accountability. No leader ought to be exempt from criminal liability. The holding of public office does not grant immunity from committing murder and torture. The peoples of the world would not allow high caste criminals to form a private club to protect each other from accountability and criminality. The people of Pakistan, just like the people of the United States, have every right to demand that their leaders while in office be accountable for high crimes and misdemeanors. Saving Musharraf sets a bad precedent. The people of Pakistan cannot grant safe exit to a well-known criminal."

Opinions expressed in JURIST Commentary are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of JURIST's editors, staff, donors or the University of Pittsburgh.