What's new

Did Dr Shakil Afridi commit treason?

Solomon2

BANNED
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Messages
19,475
Reaction score
-37
Country
United States
Location
United States
Did Dr Shakil Afridi commit treason?

By Feisal H Naqvi
Published: March 19, 2012
352122-FeisalHNaqviNew-1332170509-882-640x480.jpg

The writer is a partner at Bhandari, Naqvi & Riaz and an advocate of the Supreme Court. The writer can be reached on Twitter @laalshah. The views presented in the article above are not those of his firm


Dr Shakil Afridi is a Pakistani doctor who worked with US intelligence agencies to help capture Osama bin Laden. Ever since his role was discovered, he has been held in custody.

Many people think that the detention of Dr Afridi is justified. Their basic point is that no citizen of Pakistan can legally be employed by a foreign intelligence agency. Their further point is that other countries react the same way when they find their citizens working for foreign intelligence agencies, even those of allied states (see e.g., Jonathan Pollard, an American citizen who has been in a US jail since 1987 for providing information to the Israelis).

In my view, the statement that no Pakistani citizen can ever be employed by a foreign intelligence agency is incorrect.

There is a station commander of the CIA resident in Islamabad. We know this because his identity emerges in newspapers at times when the Pakistani state is particularly upset with the US. In addition, I believe there are also a sizable number of other intelligence operatives whose identities are known to the Pakistani government.

Each of those intelligence operatives normally employs Pakistanis as cooks and drivers. Each of those Pakistanis is in the employ of a foreign intelligence agency. None of them is automatically a traitor.

Take another example. Suppose the CIA station commander goes to a restaurant in Islamabad where the restaurant owner knows his identity. Is that restaurant owner a traitor to Pakistan? I think not.

The conclusion then is that merely working for a foreign intelligence agency is not enough to render one a criminal. Instead, it depends not only on what you do but also your intentions. More specifically, in order to be found guilty of treason (or a similar crime), it is necessary for the prosecution to show either that the accused committed an act which was wrong in itself (e.g. disclosing confidential information) or that the accused committed an act which while ostensibly legal was committed as part of a larger conspiracy to commit an illegal act.

To illustrate the concept of conspiracy, look at the role of a driver. It is legal to drive a car for somebody in exchange for payment. It is not legal to drive a car for somebody knowing that the person in question intends to rob a bank and that you will be the getaway driver.

To return to the case of Dr Shakil Afridi, there are only two ways to find him guilty. The first way is to allege and prove that what Dr Afridi did was illegal in itself. The second way is to allege and prove that what Dr Afridi was part of a larger conspiracy to commit an illegal act.

My understanding of what Dr Afridi did is that he ran a bogus polio vaccination programme at the instigation of the US intelligence services. So far as I know, the vaccinations carried out were genuine. However, the programme in question was not officially authorised and the plan was for Dr Afridi to share the genetic material collected with the US agencies to confirm the identity of Osama bin Laden.

Assuming that the vaccinations were genuine — i.e. that actual vaccination kits were used and not placebos — and given that Dr Afridi is a licensed physician, I do not see how any reasonable person can argue that the actions of Dr Afridi were illegal in and of themselves. Furthermore, even to the extent that running an unauthorised vaccination campaign is a violation of Pakistani law, it certainly does not amount to treason by itself.

What we are left with then is the argument that Dr Afridi is guilty of treason because he conspired to commit treason.

Treason is normally defined as the violation of one’s allegiance towards one country, for example by waging war against it, by aiding enemies of the state, or by working contrary to the interests of the state.

In this context, Dr Afridi’s first line of defence is presumably that he had no idea that the aim of the vaccination project was to confirm the identity of Osama bin Laden. However, my understanding is that Dr Afridi’s American friends have already destroyed this argument by claiming that Dr Afridi had full knowledge of the aim of the operation.

The legal question is then this: how is the decision by a Pakistani citizen to assist the forces of a military ally in killing Osama bin Laden equivalent to treason?

Theoretically speaking, there are two answers. The first is that Osama bin Laden was not an enemy of the state of Pakistan. Presumably, this is not an argument that the government of Pakistan wishes to adopt — at least, not in public. The second argument is that while Osama Bin Laden was indeed an enemy of Pakistan, the only entity legally justified in taking action against him was the state of Pakistan and that by assisting US intelligence agencies, Dr Afridi assisted in the violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty that occurred when Seal Team 6 flew in on helicopters to Abbottabad.

The second argument is legally valid. However, it assumes that Dr Afridi had specific knowledge of the fact that eventual action against Osama Bin Laden was going to be taken unilaterally by US Special Forces without the approval and knowledge of the Pakistani government. If that can be shown, then there is indeed a case to be made out against Dr Afridi for treason. But if that cannot be proven — and I must admit my scepticism that the US intelligence had informed Dr Afridi of an operation so secret that only handful of people knew about it — then Dr Afridi is innocent of treason.

Obviously, Dr Afridi’s guilt or innocence has yet to be determined. All I wanted to show was that it is not a simple issue.

There is another issue involved here. To my knowledge, Dr Afridi has not been charged yet with any crime. Under Article 10 of the Constitution, every person who is arrested is required to be presented before a magistrate within a period of 24 hours. Dr Afridi may or may not be guilty of treason. But if he has not been charged with a crime, the state of Pakistan is certainly guilty of holding him illegally.

Published in The Express Tribune, March 20th, 2012.
 
Dr. Afridi's guilt or innocence is not the point. He is being used as a pawn for improving the tenuous bargaining power for Pakistan. That is all. His future will be decided as part of the overall review currently under process and thus we should wait for the present parliamentary session to conclude to see what will happen next.
 
Treason or Not. This just proves why many locals don't trust NGOs and their Polio/Poverty eradication schemes etc.. They are misused a LOT by these foreign agencies!
 
Dr. Afridi's guilt or innocence is not the point. He is being used as a pawn -
Why can't a lawyer get him out of prison if he hasn't been officially charged of any crime?
 
Why can't a lawyer get him out of prison if he hasn't been officially charged of any crime?

In a land where rule of law does not exist, it is simply not possible. There is a culture of impunity historically exercised by the security establishment that renders it above any fair application of law.

Look at the bright side: being held illegally is still better than ending up tortured to death like Shakeel Shehzad.
 
Dr. Afridi's guilt or innocence is not the point. He is being used as a pawn for improving the tenuous bargaining power for Pakistan. That is all. His future will be decided as part of the overall review currently under process and thus we should wait for the present parliamentary session to conclude to see what will happen next.

You want us to wait and see? - thats a surprise coming from you Mr Cheng.
Well of course we have no choice but sit hear and of course "wait and see". Whats paramount is this chap is put on trial in Pakistan where potentially the offenses were committed under Pakistani judiciary system. The USA have been putting tremendous pressure on the Pakistani establishment but its good to see they havent caved in or fallen for the $ again.
The result of his actions isnt the issue. What the issue is that he misused his position to potentially betray peoples from the nation he aspires to be a member of. He betrayed the nation and went behind everyones back and has carried out an act or acts without consent of his own country IN his country. I think the vast populas in our nation in our nation have the same view i hold - and that is YES he did committ treason.
 
In a land where rule of law does not exist, it is simply not possible. There is a culture of impunity historically exercised by the security establishment that renders it above any fair application of law.

Look at the bright side: being held illegally is still better than ending up tortured to death like Shakeel Shehzad.

In 2008, US nominated awarded Pakistan judiciary as free judiciary!

How can you blame now?
 
Absolutely! He did commit treason.

Dr Afridi had specific knowledge of the fact that eventual action against Osama Bin Laden was going to be taken unilaterally by US Special Forces without the approval and knowledge of the Pakistani government. If that can be shown, then there is indeed a case to be made out against Dr Afridi for treason.

This what which makes him a traitor.
 
Paragraph 4:

Each of those intelligence operatives normally employs Pakistanis as cooks and drivers. Each of those Pakistanis is in the employ of a foreign intelligence agency. None of them is automatically a traitor.

I don't see clarity in this whole article. I mean, the author claims that cooks and drivers are hired and employed by intelligence agencies? I beg to differ. They are hired by the Embassy, a foreign government, through contractors, which is perfectly normal in such diplomatic posts. If the cook is deceived into being working for intelligence agency, that is a different story.

Again....Para 7

To illustrate the concept of conspiracy, look at the role of a driver. It is legal to drive a car for somebody in exchange for payment. It is not legal to drive a car for somebody knowing that the person in question intends to rob a bank and that you will be the getaway driver.

Well, it is not legal to be a driver if you know that the person is robbing a bank and you will be accomplice in his task. But it is legal if you don't know. Same with Cooks and what not. The staff is put on the embassy payroll and not the intelligence agency.

Now the question is, did this ill fated Doctor get a visit by men saying hey look we are CIA? Probably not. The CIA doesn't go around showing their IDs in places like Pakistan.


This lawyer should keep his day job and stay away from writing. Actually, i am not sure if i would want to hire him ever.
 
Dr shakeel is todays mir jaffar and mir sadik, all traitors should be punish for life
 
i think working as other countries spy is comes under treason ? if im not wrong.
must b hanged so in future people must know there fate before treason.
 
.............
Now the question is, did this ill fated Doctor get a visit by men saying hey look we are CIA? Probably not. The CIA doesn't go around showing their IDs in places like Pakistan...................

Exactly.

It is very likely that Dr. Afridi did not know the real purpose of his vaccination program, and thus is an ignorant pawn, first exploited by CIA and now by Pakistan, for benefiting competing national interest goals.

In order to convict him of treason, his knowing collaboration will need to be proven in court. He has not even been formally charged yet. If the treason case against him is so slam-dunk, why the delay?

It would interesting to see if and how his ultimate disposition is part of the "new ground rules" for the bilateral relationship presently being discussed in parliament.
 
@ thread topic:



Yes.

He did.







@ topic starter:

a plethora of existing topics in which the same discussion has taken place, are readily available. Use the search function. No need to create and "re-create" threads based on old subject matter discussed in great detail.
 
In a land where rule of law does not exist, it is simply not possible. There is a culture of impunity historically exercised by the security establishment that renders it above any fair application of law.

Look at the bright side: being held illegally is still better than ending up tortured to death like Shakeel Shehzad.

Quite wise of you to say that considering the fact that the US Senate just recently passed a bill which allows US Security Agencies to arrest and detain suspects for indefinite period without a trial. Prisoners in Guantanamo Bay have been waiting to get a trial for years but their requests have fallen to deaf ears. People living in houses made of glass dont throw rocks at other people's houses :).

Also can you please stop spreading misinformation regarding Saleem Shahzad. If the ISI wanted him gone, trust me they would have made his death look like an accident or off natural cause. TThere is not an iota of proof to implicate the ISI for this journalists murder. In fact the Taliban had more reasons to get rid of him due to his recent articles which criticized the Taliban and their conduct.
 
Back
Top Bottom