Pakistan Finds Doctor Guilty of Treason

[Papewaio]

"A Pakistani doctor who helped the US track down Osama bin Laden was sentenced to 33 years in prison on Wednesday for conspiring against the state, officials said, a verdict that is likely to further strain the country's relationship with Washington." www.smh.com.au

"no right to legal representation, to present material evidence or cross-examine witnesses."

So he is considered a traitor because he was helping a foreign spy agency. Not sure what happens normally to someone who supplies intelligence to an allied country for an operation hunting an enemy of the state. But I'm pretty sure being declared a traitor seems a bit over the top. Mind you I'm not sure any western country would have neccesarily acted differently anymore.

But I do question whose side is Pakistan really on? After all the Taliban had a lot is support from Pakisan before 9/11. How much of a proxy agency were they post 9/11?

[Kralizec]

I'm not really sure about the terminology regarding "treasonous" crimes in anglo-saxon or Pakistan's legal system. Western countries would at least have bothered to hold a trial for him, but like the guy Hoahguy mentioned a few weeks back (a jewish American who sold classified information to Israel, but also to other countries), the same acts would lead to imprisonment most western countries, probably all. That is, assuming Pakistan's side of the story is the correct one.

Which leads to the questions:
A) did the doctor realise he was working for the CIA, or was he indirectly working for them without knowing?
B) if he did know who he ultimately worked for, did he know for what purpose he was comparing DNA samples?

Whose side are they on? The government, and the ISI in particular is rife with factionalism. Pakistan is schizophrenic and on everyone's side, and therefore on no side in particular.

[Kadagar_AV]

"A Pakistani doctor who helped the US track down Osama bin Laden was sentenced to 33 years in prison on Wednesday for conspiring against the state, officials said, a verdict that is likely to further strain the country's relationship with Washington." www.smh.com.au

"no right to legal representation, to present material evidence or cross-examine witnesses."

So he is considered a traitor because he was helping a foreign spy agency. Not sure what happens normally to someone who supplies intelligence to an allied country for an operation hunting an enemy of the state. But I'm pretty sure being declared a traitor seems a bit over the top. Mind you I'm not sure any western country would have neccesarily acted differently anymore.

But I do question whose side is Pakistan really on? After all the Taliban had a lot is support from Pakisan before 9/11. How much of a proxy agency were they post 9/11?

Well, in all fairness, helping a foreign spy agency pretty much defines treason towards the state, no?


Would you in the US be comfortable with a person helping a foreign spy agency catch an US international war criminal? But then, the USA has not even signed the treaty about subjecting their war criminals to the international court, so I know, moot point anyway.

Technically the Unites States of America have no international war criminals, as you are not subjects of international law in this case.

What was that thing about throwing stuff around in melted-sand surroundings?

[rory_20_uk]

Just because the USA thinks he's a "good guy" as he's helped them means nothing. Frankly it is stupefying how events are always viewed through this prism.

America killed people in Pakistan with no jurisdiction. As @Kadagar_AV mentioned, they always have their own set of rules and seem perplexed why the rest of the world doesn't "get it". He's a traitor. Traitors should be locked up, and if the evidence is incontrovertible, shot.

[Kadagar_AV]

Pakistan is within their rights, but I feel horrible the Doctor. Its obvious that Pakistan is not our ally in fact, but only in lip service. Since the damage has already been done, the right thing to do would be to send Seal Team 6 back in for the Doctor. Sorry Pakistan, tough luck.

Well, with the oxymoron being the US military intelligence, what would you do when the team got shot down?

Drop some bombs?

Send in the army?

Nuke?

All because a sovereign nation criminalized a citizen who worked for an agency of another state?

*and people wonder why people wonder*

[Kadagar_AV]

Do not get me wrong here, I am no big fan of UBL.

I am no big fan of the US either.

In fact, I am no big fan of overly conservative forces at large.

However, let us have some perspective here.

With this doctor, there are really only 2 possible reasoning's:

1. He thought Usama Bin Laden was a friend of the state - but worked with foreign operatives to get him caught. Thus he would be a traitor.

2. He thought Usama Bin laden was an enemy of the state - but instead of helping his state he helped a foreign power. Thus he would be a traitor.


I can't see a theoretical where he is not an enemy of the state.

If the USA cared about him so much, they should have helped him escape before it was publicly known. Seal Team Six should have helped him out some weeks ago already. To let it all go public will only result in scorn for the US.

[Major Robert Dump]

Everyone should have seen this coming, and the US should have expedited his departure from Pakistan. The guy probably did not want to leave his home country, and not sure how long he has been in custody, but this should have been accounted for before the raid even started.

Yes, Pakistan is a jerk for this.

And yes, the US failed this informant, just like we failed all of our interpeters in Iraq and will fail our intepreters in Afghanistan who will never have a ticket to the US. Just like we failed the Kurds in 92. Typical one-sided, selfish, short-term tunnel vision by the US. Congrats.

[Crazed Rabbit]

We're in the process of doing *the same* to Bradley Manning, and he did much less than help armed foreign soldiers sneak in and kill somebody.

CR

[spankythehippo]

Do not get me wrong here, I am no big fan of UBL.

I am no big fan of the US either.

In fact, I am no big fan of overly conservative forces at large.

However, let us have some perspective here.

With this doctor, there are really only 2 possible reasoning's:

1. He thought Usama Bin Laden was a friend of the state - but worked with foreign operatives to get him caught. Thus he would be a traitor.

2. He thought Usama Bin laden was an enemy of the state - but instead of helping his state he helped a foreign power. Thus he would be a traitor.


I can't see a theoretical where he is not an enemy of the state.

If the USA cared about him so much, they should have helped him escape before it was publicly known. Seal Team Six should have helped him out some weeks ago already. To let it all go public will only result in scorn for the US.

In a country where corruption courses through it's veins, I'm not surprised the doctor sought help from a foreign power. If the doctor spoke to the Pakistani authorities, I doubt they would've done anything.

[Major Robert Dump]

We're in the process of doing *the same* to Bradley Manning, and he did much less than help armed foreign soldiers sneak in and kill somebody.

CR

Maybe we can do a prisoner trade.

Oddly enough, there is talk that the wikileaks debacle may have played a part in exposing this doctor.

I don't understand why we work to bring this Chinese dissident over but we hung this guy out to dry. It's not like he would have had a hard time crossing into Afghanistan, where we could have given him a ride out. Crap like this will dissuade future informants from helping us out, as it well should

[Vladimir]

So all I got from this thread is that people are criticizing nation states for acting like nation states. Is that correct?

[Pannonian]

So all I got from this thread is that people are criticizing nation states for acting like nation states. Is that correct?

It sounds more like people are criticising the US government for not expecting nation states to act like nation states.

[CountArach]

American Cuts Aid in Retaliation

A US senate committee has voted to cut Pakistan's aid by $1m for each of the 33 years of a prison sentence given to a doctor for helping the CIA to track down Osama bin Laden.
[...]
The Senate appropriations committee has already slashed foreign aid to Pakistan from the $2bn proposed by Barack Obama to just $800m from October 1, in part because of across-the-board budget cuts, but also because of frustration with Pakistan. The additional $33m reduction will come from military aid. But it is likely to be restored if Afridi is released. The US has given Pakistan more than $18bn in aid since the 9/11 attacks.

First off, America shouldn't be giving them military aid in the first place and at least this is better than cutting other forms of aid. I'm also curious if perhaps Pakistan was looking non-to-kindly on those helping the US in the first place since the initial cut. $1.2bn is a lot of money.

[Major Robert Dump]

It's no secret that Pakistans anti-insurgency status quo has not changed on their western border. Ever. The money we send them goes to build up on the Indian front, and goes into the pockets of the residence kleptocracy. Withholding military financial aid will not make ANY difference on the western Pakistan front. Zero.


We gonna cut back even more as soon as we can get a long term renewal with Kyrg. the tit is about to dry up with pakistan

[Vladimir]

We gonna cut back even more as soon as we can get a long term renewal with Kyrg. the tit is about to dry up with pakistan

I hope so. We've had far too familiar relations with them since India decided to flirt with communism some decades back.

[rajpoot]

I hope so. We've had far too familiar relations with them since India decided to flirt with communism some decades back.

Good thing that didn't get very serious. Our politicians have always been doing crazy things like that.
Luckily they were too crazy to become communists.

[Vladimir]

Good thing that didn't get very serious. Our politicians have always been doing crazy things like that.
Luckily they were too crazy to become communists.

I fairness I think it was in their best interest back then. Plus they were the targets of a massive misinformation campaign. It would have been hard to align with the U.S. and Europe during the Vietnam War.

[rajpoot]

I fairness I think it was in their best interest back then. Plus they were the targets of a massive misinformation campaign. It would have been hard to align with the U.S. and Europe during the Vietnam War.

Maybe. I confess that I do not know enough to judge them. Nonetheless, I've always felt that the Non-Alignment policy we followed back then cause more harm than good. And then eventually tried to curry favour with the wrong side.
Had India decided to align with USA back then, probably a lot of problems this region faced and faces today could've been avoided to some extent. And it's not as if we're not doing that now.
Better late than never I guess.

[Major Robert Dump]

India has far more to offer any country in an alliance and trade agreement that Pakistan WILL EVER have.

The Great Floods of 2010, where Pakistan showed it was completely incapable of caring for its own people during a time of mitigatable disaster and had to cry for help from NATO, created a political conspiracy theory that persists to this day that INDIA was the cause of the floods, despite being on the opposite side of the country in which the flooding occurred. People used this theory to rally support and get elected.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Part of me wants the US to help India expand back to the size of the Maurya Empire.

[Centurion1]

pakistan is a joke and i hate that we give them money which they likely throw back across the border surreptitiously to kill our soldiers.

India is such a superior ally it isn't even funny and could serve as china's greatest Asian rival with some help and guidance from the US. But no.... we choose Pakistan. Does the American government think that India will forget or not notice we give Pakistan military aid? Instead of making friends with them and tossing our pseudo friend Pakistan to the side we distance ourselves year by year when we give their greatest foe money to build bombs.

And yes, I would love to send a covert operation into Pakistan, free this dude and also place a burning bag of dog **** on the governments doorstep. What afre they gonna do about it?

[Greyblades]

What afre they gonna do about it?

Use the nukes America helped them build? From what I've seen these guys are about as sane as Kim Jong Il

[Kralizec]

Use the nukes America helped them build? From what I've seen these guys are about as sane as Kim Jong Il

I don't think that they have missiles capable of reaching the US. At least, India only recently started with nukes capable of reaching Beijing (a much smaller distance), and I doubt that Pakistan is ahead of them by that much - if at all.

Not that I'd support such an action (that is; jailbreaking the doctor). Whatever the motivations of the doctor were, even if they were commendable, any government is well within its rights to prosecute foreign agents or their accomplices for what they're doing on their own soil. It seems to me that if the USA genuinely cared about his wellbeing they would have thought of a way of extracting him from Pakistan before he would get caught.

[Xiahou]

Do not get me wrong here, I am no big fan of UBL.

I am no big fan of the US either.

In fact, I am no big fan of overly conservative forces at large.

However, let us have some perspective here.

With this doctor, there are really only 2 possible reasoning's:

1. He thought Usama Bin Laden was a friend of the state - but worked with foreign operatives to get him caught. Thus he would be a traitor.

2. He thought Usama Bin laden was an enemy of the state - but instead of helping his state he helped a foreign power. Thus he would be a traitor.


I can't see a theoretical where he is not an enemy of the state.

If the USA cared about him so much, they should have helped him escape before it was publicly known. Seal Team Six should have helped him out some weeks ago already. To let it all go public will only result in scorn for the US.

What definition of treason are you using?

Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.

Working with your nation's allies to track down their enemy and a nominal enemy of your own state doesn't really sound like overthrow or serious injury to the state of Pakistan. The only way Bin Laden's loss would be a "serious injury" to Pakistan is if he was an asset to the state. Pakistan has been walking on both sides of the Al Qaeda issue for a long time. If helping locate Bin Laden is treason, what does that say about Pakistan's seriousness in fighting Al Qaeda?

[Major Robert Dump]

Well thats just it.

Kadagar is right. The Docs actions do harm to Pakistan as a whole, because it exposed Pakistan as the backstabbing, untrustworthy, unstable, tit sucking ally that they are. I mean, at least Israel makes no secret they would screw us for their own well being. Pakistan is working both sides, and when both sides come calling they cannot keep up the jig, as indicated by the base attack several months back where the billion dollars of aircraft we had just given them were destroyed. That entire ordeal was not simply a bad guys attacking the good guys. It went much deeper than that.

Pakistan, as a country, cannot support itself, its infrastructure, or its food requirements without outside assistance. Us and NATO support drying up for them is detrimental to their well being as a nation.

This entire thread is a no brainer. Who here DID NOT think they would not prosecute or at least make this guy "disappear," which makes me ask again: why did we not whisk this guy and his family away??

[Crazed Rabbit]

What definition of treason are you using?

Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.

Working with your nation's allies to track down their enemy and a nominal enemy of your own state doesn't really sound like overthrow or serious injury to the state of Pakistan. The only way Bin Laden's loss would be a "serious injury" to Pakistan is if he was an asset to the state. Pakistan has been walking on both sides of the Al Qaeda issue for a long time. If helping locate Bin Laden is treason, what does that say about Pakistan's seriousness in fighting Al Qaeda?

I think helping a foreign nation send armed soldiers into your nation without your government's knowledge is close to treason. Allies don't enter your nation with military force unannounced. Or send drones to kill your citizens on the basis they associated with people who might be terrorists.

CR

[Xiahou]

I think helping a foreign nation send armed soldiers into your nation without your government's knowledge is close to treason.

How exactly did he help send armed soldiers into his nation? I think our special forces were quite capable of getting into the country without his help. No, all he did was help locate Bin Laden.

He gave intelligence to the US- intelligence that Pakistan maintains they would have given to the US if they had it. Meanwhile, we find bin Laden living in the shadow of a Pakistani military academy. Again, their charging this man with treason indicates that bin Laden was an important national asset- which in turn puts the lie to the notion that they were out ally in searching for him.

Well thats just it.

Kadagar is right. The Docs actions do harm to Pakistan as a whole, because it exposed Pakistan as the backstabbing, untrustworthy, unstable, tit sucking ally that they are. I mean, at least Israel makes no secret they would screw us for their own well being. Pakistan is working both sides, and when both sides come calling they cannot keep up the jig, as indicated by the base attack several months back where the billion dollars of aircraft we had just given them were destroyed. That entire ordeal was not simply a bad guys attacking the good guys. It went much deeper than that.

This may be true- but I don't really think they wanted to air it out in quite this way.... Maybe they'll now have to charge the prosecutor and judge with treason too for damaging their relationship with their sugardaddy (US).

[Vladimir]

What definition of treason are you using?

Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.

Working with your nation's allies to track down their enemy and a nominal enemy of your own state doesn't really sound like overthrow or serious injury to the state of Pakistan. The only way Bin Laden's loss would be a "serious injury" to Pakistan is if he was an asset to the state. Pakistan has been walking on both sides of the Al Qaeda issue for a long time. If helping locate Bin Laden is treason, what does that say about Pakistan's seriousness in fighting Al Qaeda?

I don't think Pakistan uses Oran's dictionary of law, but I'm not an international policy expert.

[Xiahou]

I don't think Pakistan uses Oran's dictionary of law, but I'm not an international policy expert.

That's not really the point. Pakistan can define spitting on the sidewalk as high treason if they want to. But for the purposes of our discussion about whether the doctor's treason conviction is reasonable and warranted (as some appear to be arguing) it's helpful to have a commonly accepted definition of treason as a point of reference.

However, I think even when looking at what passes for law in Pakistan, the case for treason against him is shaky.

Regardless of whether Afridi is a hero or a traitor, some important technical and legal questions are being raised regarding the charge of ‘treason’ levelled against him and the holding of his trial through an official Jirga under the FCR. First, many will question the bringing of a treason charge against Afridi. The crime of high treason has been defined by Article 6 of the Constitution, which is an act of abrogation, subversion, suspension, holding in abeyance or attempting, conspiring, abetting to do or adding the aforementioned acts by use of force or show of force or by any other unconstitutional means. Afridi’s acts do not appear to fall under the definition of treason by any stretch of the imagination.

Second, the alleged crime of treason was committed in Abbottabad and not in Khyber Agency. Therefore, the Political Agent of Khyber Agency, under the existing jurisprudence of the superior judiciary, does not have the jurisdiction to try the alleged crime under the FCR that was committed in the settled areas.

Third, the Constitution of Pakistan guarantees the rights of the accused to be brought before a magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest; informed of the charges as soon as possible; kept in police custody beyond 24 hours with the permission of the court only; given a fair trial by the regular judiciary; represented through counsel of his choice; dealt with in accordance with law; and enjoy the equal protection of law. Afridi seems to have been deprived of all his fundamental human rights.

Fourth, it appears the move to try Afridi through the official Jirga under the FCR is with the intention of barring the jurisdiction of the Peshawar High Court and the Supreme Court of Pakistan from hearing the appeals of Afridi against his punishment. Article 247 of the Constitution bars the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and a High Court in relation to a tribal area.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Helping a Foriegn Power, allied or no, is Treason; during a time of war it is sometimes called "High Treason".

Pakistan is fully within its rights to prosecute this man and, frankly, he is fortunate not to be executed.

Having said that - the US should have extracted him, his home country should have given him a trial and the Pakistani's should have nabbed Bin Laden themselves.

So the conclusion to be drawn is that the people who rule the US and Pakistan and particularly their intelligence agencies are jerks but no judge or jury could have let this guy off.