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.

[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.

[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?