[latimesblogs.latimes.com]

"ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — A Pakistani doctor who led a phony vaccination campaign aimed at helping the CIA pinpoint Osama bin Laden’s whereabouts was convicted of treason Wednesday and sentenced to 33 years in prison, a decision that is likely to further erode Washington’s fragile relations with Islamabad.

The U.S. has been seeking the release of Shakeel Afridi ever since his arrest by Pakistani authorities after the secret U.S. commando raid that killed the Al Qaeda leader in his compound in the military city of Abbottabad a year ago. In January, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta told CBS’ "60 Minutes" that Afridi had provided intelligence that assisted the raid and criticized Pakistan’s arrest of someone involved in helping track down the world’s most wanted man"

- - -
Further confirmation that Pakistan's government is heavily partnered with Al Quaeda et. al.

Dammit.

yeah, that was my reaction

---

Did he commit treason? It sorta sounds like he did.

---

rj
AKA
Vreemac, Moth of the Future

Quote
cbelt3
- - -
Further confirmation that Pakistan's government is heavily partnered with Al Quaeda et. al.

Dammit.

Pakistan has had the US by the balls for a long while and really enjoys squeezing them.

---

"Success isn't about how much money you make. It is about the difference you make in people's lives."--Michelle Obama

Quote
rjmacs
Did he commit treason? It sorta sounds like he did.

Maybe so, but given the circumstances there could have been an arranged asylum type move. Who knows, maybe this is a card Pakistan will play later.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/23/2012 02:26PM by Pam.

Who knows why Pakistan protected OBL (at least it seems they did). I can think of a couple of reasons. But remember, it's not like the United States and Britain hasn't protected mass murderers (Pinochet, just for starters...).

They're not my enemy. The food is too good.

Quote
rjmacs
Did he commit treason? It sorta sounds like he did.

I can't find a definition of treason that would convince me what he did was treasonous. I can certainly see why they don't like it, but I wouldn't call it treason. kj.

Quote
kj

Quote
rjmacs
Did he commit treason? It sorta sounds like he did.

I can't find a definition of treason that would convince me what he did was treasonous. I can certainly see why they don't like it, but I wouldn't call it treason. kj.

He collaborated with a foreign nation's military/intelligence services to conduct surveillance on his own country's soil. Not entirely sure how you get around that being treasonous.

---

rj
AKA
Vreemac, Moth of the Future

Quote
kj

Quote
rjmacs
Did he commit treason? It sorta sounds like he did.

I can't find a definition of treason that would convince me what he did was treasonous. I can certainly see why they don't like it, but I wouldn't call it treason. kj.

He helped a foreign power conduct covert and unwanted intelligence operations in his home country.

I agree with Cbelt: Pakistan is (at least) no our friend. And I think what this man did was brave and honorable, but treasonous. There's a conundrum for you.

---

[www.flickr.com] [picasaweb.google.com]

Quote
rjmacs

Quote
kj

Quote
rjmacs
Did he commit treason? It sorta sounds like he did.

I can't find a definition of treason that would convince me what he did was treasonous. I can certainly see why they don't like it, but I wouldn't call it treason. kj.

He collaborated with a foreign nation's military/intelligence services to conduct surveillance on his own country's soil. Not entirely sure how you get around that being treasonous.

Every definition seems to require that the act be intended to overthrow or otherwise damage the collaborator's own government. I don't really see what he did as an act against the pakistani government. It doesn't respect their authority, but then breaking any law is disrespectful of the government's authority. Not necessarily treasonous though. If OBL had been somehow involved in the Pakistani government, I would see it as more clear cut. But as it was, I'm not sure I would even consider him a legitimate citizen of Pakistan. kj.

It would seem that many people lack a basic understanding of the definition of treason.

Quote
freeradical
It would seem that many people lack a basic understanding of the definition of treason.

Criticism of the President*.





*Offer expires Jan 20th 2009.

Seriously kj, if he were a US citizen who disagreed with government policy and facilitated the release of a terrorist sympathizer, would you feel the same?

You cannot and should not hold other countries to a different standard simply because you're an American.

An ugly one at that.

Quote
rjmacs

Quote
kj

Quote
rjmacs
Did he commit treason? It sorta sounds like he did.

I can't find a definition of treason that would convince me what he did was treasonous. I can certainly see why they don't like it, but I wouldn't call it treason. kj.

He collaborated with a foreign nation's military/intelligence services to conduct surveillance on his own country's soil. Not entirely sure how you get around that being treasonous.

Treason, in the legal sense, is when you conspire to overthrow your government or harm your ruler. I don't think this was treason. I could see it being a crime of espionage, but to be treasonous the espionage would have to be aiding an enemy -- which suppposedly the US is not. Although as the OP says, I guess we are.

---

"Stop thinking about art works as objects, and start thinking about them as triggers for experiences." ~ Brian Eno

Quote
RgrF
Seriously kj, if he were a US citizen who disagreed with government policy and facilitated the release of a terrorist sympathizer, would you feel the same?

You cannot and should not hold other countries to a different standard simply because you're an American.

An ugly one at that.

You assume too much. If a criminal responsible for at least a couple thousand murders was hiding in a compound in texas, and the same thing happened, I still wouldn't consider that person treasonous. In fact, I might consider them ethically in the right (there's a lot more to ethics than law). Plus, I might be ugly, but I'm not an "Ugly American". Good book though. People like that infuriate me, and I hope I've never been one. kj.

Quote
$tevie

Quote
rjmacs

Quote
kj

Quote
rjmacs
Did he commit treason? It sorta sounds like he did.

I can't find a definition of treason that would convince me what he did was treasonous. I can certainly see why they don't like it, but I wouldn't call it treason. kj.

He collaborated with a foreign nation's military/intelligence services to conduct surveillance on his own country's soil. Not entirely sure how you get around that being treasonous.

Treason, in the legal sense, is when you conspire to overthrow your government or harm your ruler. I don't think this was treason. I could see it being a crime of espionage, but to be treasonous the espionage would have to be aiding an enemy -- which suppposedly the US is not. Although as the OP says, I guess we are.

You know, you made me wonder if it could be a political move for the Pakistani leaders. I'm sure there are plenty who are sympathetic to OBL in Pakistan, and they could just be pandering to them, without necessarily considering us the "enemy". It kind of assumes leaders there behave the way ours do in the U.S., but that might not be a huge stretch. kj.

How we (as Americans) define treason is completely irrelevent in this case.

Getting back on subject, I don't recall any objection to us partnering with the USSR to defeat a common enemy, how is the bifurcation of our relationship with Pakistan substantially different than the polices we pursued back then?

Quote
Lux Interior
How we (as Americans) define treason is completely irrelevent in this case.

Very good point.

---

"Stop thinking about art works as objects, and start thinking about them as triggers for experiences." ~ Brian Eno

Quote
kj
If a criminal responsible for at least a couple thousand murders was hiding in a compound in texas, and the same thing happened, I still wouldn't consider that person treasonous. In fact, I might consider them ethically in the right (there's a lot more to ethics than law). Plus, I might be ugly, but I'm not an "Ugly American". Good book though. People like that infuriate me, and I hope I've never been one. kj.

So you'd be ok with 'that person' facilitating a Mexican invasion force to swoop in and collect that murderer of 2000 people and take him back to Mexico? No frikken way!

The crime was in working with a foreign gov't to assist them to invade his country - NOT because he assisted in capturing Bin Laden.

If ANY foreign force invaded the US for ANY REASON without our knowledge, you can bet it would be treated as an act of war and anyone that facilitated that act on our side would be guilty or treason. Right?

Quote
hal

Quote
kj
If a criminal responsible for at least a couple thousand murders was hiding in a compound in texas, and the same thing happened, I still wouldn't consider that person treasonous. In fact, I might consider them ethically in the right (there's a lot more to ethics than law). Plus, I might be ugly, but I'm not an "Ugly American". Good book though. People like that infuriate me, and I hope I've never been one. kj.

So you'd be ok with 'that person' facilitating a Mexican invasion force to swoop in and collect that murderer of 2000 people and take him back to Mexico? No frikken way!

The crime was in working with a foreign gov't to assist them to invade his country - NOT because he assisted in capturing Bin Laden.

If ANY foreign force invaded the US for ANY REASON without our knowledge, you can bet it would be treated as an act of war and anyone that facilitated that act on our side would be guilty or treason. Right?

No, I don't see it that way. Specifically, I don't think we invaded their country. We didn't engage any of their troops, and as I said before, we didn't even so much as touch a citizen of Pakistan. The man that provided us information wasn't trying to undermine the government there, nor was he doing anything to "hurt" his country. And yeah, I would be ok with what you said in the first sentence. Except that I wouldn't see it as an invasion of the U.S. I don't think it's likely anything like that would happen here (or even could), but it would be interesting to see what our reaction would be. kj.

Quote
kj

Quote
hal

Quote
kj
If a criminal responsible for at least a couple thousand murders was hiding in a compound in texas, and the same thing happened, I still wouldn't consider that person treasonous. In fact, I might consider them ethically in the right (there's a lot more to ethics than law). Plus, I might be ugly, but I'm not an "Ugly American". Good book though. People like that infuriate me, and I hope I've never been one. kj.

So you'd be ok with 'that person' facilitating a Mexican invasion force to swoop in and collect that murderer of 2000 people and take him back to Mexico? No frikken way!

The crime was in working with a foreign gov't to assist them to invade his country - NOT because he assisted in capturing Bin Laden.

If ANY foreign force invaded the US for ANY REASON without our knowledge, you can bet it would be treated as an act of war and anyone that facilitated that act on our side would be guilty or treason. Right?

No, I don't see it that way. Specifically, I don't think we invaded their country. We didn't engage any of their troops, and as I said before, we didn't even so much as touch a citizen of Pakistan. The man that provided us information wasn't trying to undermine the government there, nor was he doing anything to "hurt" his country. And yeah, I would be ok with what you said in the first sentence. Except that I wouldn't see it as an invasion of the U.S. I don't think it's likely anything like that would happen here (or even could), but it would be interesting to see what our reaction would be. kj.

Huh? Bin Laden's courier, the courier's brother and the brother's wife were all Pakistani, and all killed in the raid.

---

rj
AKA
Vreemac, Moth of the Future

Quote
rjmacs

Quote
kj

Quote
hal

Quote
kj
If a criminal responsible for at least a couple thousand murders was hiding in a compound in texas, and the same thing happened, I still wouldn't consider that person treasonous. In fact, I might consider them ethically in the right (there's a lot more to ethics than law). Plus, I might be ugly, but I'm not an "Ugly American". Good book though. People like that infuriate me, and I hope I've never been one. kj.

So you'd be ok with 'that person' facilitating a Mexican invasion force to swoop in and collect that murderer of 2000 people and take him back to Mexico? No frikken way!

The crime was in working with a foreign gov't to assist them to invade his country - NOT because he assisted in capturing Bin Laden.

If ANY foreign force invaded the US for ANY REASON without our knowledge, you can bet it would be treated as an act of war and anyone that facilitated that act on our side would be guilty or treason. Right?

No, I don't see it that way. Specifically, I don't think we invaded their country. We didn't engage any of their troops, and as I said before, we didn't even so much as touch a citizen of Pakistan. The man that provided us information wasn't trying to undermine the government there, nor was he doing anything to "hurt" his country. And yeah, I would be ok with what you said in the first sentence. Except that I wouldn't see it as an invasion of the U.S. I don't think it's likely anything like that would happen here (or even could), but it would be interesting to see what our reaction would be. kj.

Huh? Bin Laden's courier, the courier's brother and the brother's wife were all Pakistani, and all killed in the raid.

I could be wrong, but I thought they were from Kuwait. But even if they were Pakistani, that would only partially change my opinion. kj.

Quote
kj

Quote
rjmacs

Quote
kj

Quote
hal

Quote
kj
If a criminal responsible for at least a couple thousand murders was hiding in a compound in texas, and the same thing happened, I still wouldn't consider that person treasonous. In fact, I might consider them ethically in the right (there's a lot more to ethics than law). Plus, I might be ugly, but I'm not an "Ugly American". Good book though. People like that infuriate me, and I hope I've never been one. kj.

So you'd be ok with 'that person' facilitating a Mexican invasion force to swoop in and collect that murderer of 2000 people and take him back to Mexico? No frikken way!

The crime was in working with a foreign gov't to assist them to invade his country - NOT because he assisted in capturing Bin Laden.

If ANY foreign force invaded the US for ANY REASON without our knowledge, you can bet it would be treated as an act of war and anyone that facilitated that act on our side would be guilty or treason. Right?

No, I don't see it that way. Specifically, I don't think we invaded their country. We didn't engage any of their troops, and as I said before, we didn't even so much as touch a citizen of Pakistan. The man that provided us information wasn't trying to undermine the government there, nor was he doing anything to "hurt" his country. And yeah, I would be ok with what you said in the first sentence. Except that I wouldn't see it as an invasion of the U.S. I don't think it's likely anything like that would happen here (or even could), but it would be interesting to see what our reaction would be. kj.

Huh? Bin Laden's courier, the courier's brother and the brother's wife were all Pakistani, and all killed in the raid.

I could be wrong, but I thought they were from Kuwait. But even if they were Pakistani, that would only partially change my opinion. kj.

The courier was born in Kuwait, but was of Pakistani parentage, spoke Pashto and lived in Pakistan.

---

rj
AKA
Vreemac, Moth of the Future