Solomon2
BANNED
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2008
- Messages
- 19,475
- Reaction score
- -37
- Country
- Location
The section on Dr. Afridi is very interesting. The Commission investigation is that Dr. Afridi found nothing strange about what he was doing and none of it, as far as Dr. A. was concerned, was secret. During his 35 days under ISI custody and interrogation no case was registered against him nor did he appear before a magistrate. The ISI based its judgment that Dr. A. was "recruited by the CIA" from the U.S. Secretary of Defense's comments that Afridi was cultivated as an asset:
"...it is possible as he said he did not know anything about the special operations mission...the CIA could have ferreted him out of the country...Only a fair trial based on due process can establish the extent and nature of his involvement. While he should stand trial, convicting him on trumped-up charges by a government-sponsored tribal jirga was not a proper course as it undermined the credibility of the country and the judicial process. It was a travesty -" (page 116.)
Well, as far as I'm concerned the real travesty is that Pakistanis - especially my interlocutors here - didn't object to how Dr. Afridi was railroaded.
As for media allegations that Dr. A's vaccination program was somehow fake, I find no trace of that in the report, only that it wasn't authorized by his gov't employer and that his program was directly funded because 95% of funds distributed through official channels had been embezzled.
Also interesting was the ISI's admission that the American's concern about leaks if they informed the Pakistanis might be the case if it concerned FATA but "this explanation could not apply to Abbottabad". (p. 174) What the...? Did the ISI make it a routine practice to tip off favored terrorists in FATA, maybe even misdirecting drone strikes?
Furthermore, the DG ISI is quoted as saying that part of the systematic problem confronting Pakistan was "the real problem which lay in the inability of the state to establish its writ" (p. 177) which imo pretty much confirms that, as far as acts against terrorists are concerned, the U.S. can justify its actions under international law, especially UNSCR 1373 which makes it a binding sovereign obligation for states to eliminate terror havens, etc., or else their sovereignty is null in the face of others actions against them.
Far from its public reputation as one of the finest intel agencies on the planet, the Commission repeatedly labels the ISI as inept.
There's a lot more, enough for any Pakistani to see that Pakistani citizens have been played as fools.
"...it is possible as he said he did not know anything about the special operations mission...the CIA could have ferreted him out of the country...Only a fair trial based on due process can establish the extent and nature of his involvement. While he should stand trial, convicting him on trumped-up charges by a government-sponsored tribal jirga was not a proper course as it undermined the credibility of the country and the judicial process. It was a travesty -" (page 116.)
Well, as far as I'm concerned the real travesty is that Pakistanis - especially my interlocutors here - didn't object to how Dr. Afridi was railroaded.
As for media allegations that Dr. A's vaccination program was somehow fake, I find no trace of that in the report, only that it wasn't authorized by his gov't employer and that his program was directly funded because 95% of funds distributed through official channels had been embezzled.
Also interesting was the ISI's admission that the American's concern about leaks if they informed the Pakistanis might be the case if it concerned FATA but "this explanation could not apply to Abbottabad". (p. 174) What the...? Did the ISI make it a routine practice to tip off favored terrorists in FATA, maybe even misdirecting drone strikes?
Furthermore, the DG ISI is quoted as saying that part of the systematic problem confronting Pakistan was "the real problem which lay in the inability of the state to establish its writ" (p. 177) which imo pretty much confirms that, as far as acts against terrorists are concerned, the U.S. can justify its actions under international law, especially UNSCR 1373 which makes it a binding sovereign obligation for states to eliminate terror havens, etc., or else their sovereignty is null in the face of others actions against them.
Far from its public reputation as one of the finest intel agencies on the planet, the Commission repeatedly labels the ISI as inept.
There's a lot more, enough for any Pakistani to see that Pakistani citizens have been played as fools.
