I've been watching Pakistan and the whole Subcontinent area for a while now and this latest bully move by Musharraf to retain some sort of control of his country by declaring martial law, or "emergency plus" powers as the locals are calling it, continues to be instructive.  Here in America we have a choice, do we continue supporting a so-called-ally on the War on Terror, Musharraf, as in this assertion of power or do we support our overarching goal, the Rule of Law, which has been the ostensible underlying principle of our engagement with the rest of the world as well as the War on Terror?

Musharraf's been subverting what we'd consider an approved ROL path for years, starting with his coup and continuing through sacking judges and now this martial law declaration, all in hopes of bringing the country together.  This latest move was in a small part to attempt to get his soldiers whom the NWFP rebels captured w/o a shot.  Musharraf's been playing two ends against each other, in my opinion, which to be honest, is almost the only way he can do it - he's been turning a blind eye, sort of, to our cross-border interactions between Afghanistan and the NWFP, causing us to refer to him as an "ally" and causing his own countrymen to call him a hypocrite and a tyrant.  This enrages his opposition - both the seemingly more democratic Buhtto-esque side as well as the more fundamentalist Taliban side.  The foregone fact that Al Qaeda's in full force in the NWFP makes it even more of a joke that we call him an "ally."

So, this new step - does the War on Terror trump the Rule of Law?  Defenders of the Constitution already have their answer, but for foreign policy nerds we'll have our answer burned bright in how we react - via hollow diplomatic rebukes (aka "disappointment") or actual pulling of monies and materiel support.

[Follow up edit]: CSM Article on this very topic.