It's sarcasm, but of the constructive sort.
The point is, where do you draw the line?
uhh, you don't
here doesn't appear to be anything in the doctor's conduct that rises to the level of treason unless you stretch the definition so much that all other crimes are included, or else to confess that shielding Osama Bin Laden was official Pakistani policy and by helping rat him out the doctor was, in some way, undermining the constitution.
the outcome wasn't unconstitutional; but the way to go about achieving that outcome was indeed. That is why Dr. Afridi is in hot water right now, and wont be enjoying the money and green card that was offered to him. He took orders and directives from a foreign govt. without alerting the local government
as Dr. Afridi was residing in Pakistan and a Pakistani passport holder (i.e. a Pakistani citizen) it means he is bound to abide by and respect the local laws. Ignorance of those laws or praying that he'd never be caught --is no excuse to break the law.
and quite frankly, you (Solomon) were quite ''vocal'' on your views against Dr. Fai so it's very strange to see you now applying double-standards here. It's an argument you can't win.
I'll remind you that the treason charge isn't going to hold water under international law since, under binding U.N. Security Council resolutions 1373 and 1368, Pakistan had failed at its sovereign obligation to at least attempt to root out Bin Laden so Pakistan has no sovereignty in this matter. Indeed, it can be construed that prosecuting the doctor will put Pakistan in violation of international law.
using that logic, NATO's mightiest armies also failed --since they allowed him to slip from Tora Bora which was under their control. I guess in their cases, it's silly to talk about sovereignty because within 2 years, they were breaching the sovereignty of 2 countries.
2 countries which, incidentally, never attacked the U.S.
Pakistan has full sovereignty and it is a sovereign country. It is for that reason that people like Dr. Afridi are prosecuted and meet harsh consequences, otherwise a bad precedent would be set. It's bad enough we have a porous border with Afghanistan; last thing we need are to be double-crossed by people we entrust to save and protect lives, such as a doctor who ended up administering fake vaccines and putting all other NGO/humanitarian groups in jeopardy.
the spin-masters would say ''aha! look! they are prosecuting the guy who helped nab bin laden...means they must have been complicit''
well they can say that and that's what they are saying....but it's a failed argument and anyone with a clear head could see beyond that.
if you feel disillusioned and disenfranchised that Pakistan is supposedly in violation of its international obligations and international conventions --then take action. Why don't you go right ahead and use the time you post here to instead write an Op-Ed in new-york slimes and washington post, explaining why U.S. should take Pakistan to the ICJ.
What's stopping you from that?