Comparing the ideologies of General Musharraf and Genre.. Err, excuse me, President Bush

Reading this blog post requires that you've paid attention to events in Central Asia over the weekend, but for those who haven't here's a quick overview: The Pakistani Supreme Court was set to rule on whether or not President Musharraf could run for reelection while still heading Pakistan's military. Additiionally, former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, who has recently returned to the country and wants a piece of the political pie (and has the clout to demand such) was out of the country, in Dubai on personal matters. General Musharraf then went apeshit, suspending the constitution and declaring martial law; also comparing himself to Abraham Lincoln, basically saying that he's a president trying to keep his country together. But unlike America's civil war, Musharraf claims that Pakistan is fighting terrorism.

Now, bringing us to my post, how exactly is terrorism defined? And where does a similariity between Bush and Musharraf's views come into play? The truth is scarier than you think:

Unlike Bush, Musharraf at least had the decency to announce to the whole world that he was placing the constitution "in abeyance" and arrogating all power to his sole person. The Bush administration prefers to promulgate shadowy memoranda, signing statements, and Humpty-Dumpty like amendments to the meaning of common words. Since the courts are instruments of terrorists (and can even be used to demoralize the security forces!) counter-terrorism logically requires the abolition of the rule of law.

Yeah, go you should read the whole thing.

[Crossposted from Sugar Land is Dreaming]