After jailing Kashmiri lobbyist Fai, US is being fussy over its CIA agent?

[Secur]

News to me, so in Pakistan you have different laws that you can choose depending on what you like?

Actually he should consider himself lucky that we wasn't tried in High Court or Supreme Court ... They aren't so lenient to traitors to give them 33 years in prison ... I am pretty sure that he would have handed a straight death sentence !

 

[Secur]

Let the Americans moan , we have already rejected their aid !

Please continue depending on NDN and provide a bargaining chip to Moscow ...

 

[Bang Galore]

An individual acting without the knowledge and authority of the State, in knowingly assisting a foreign intelligence agency, is committing a crime, since such an individual could advertently or inadvertently compromise national security and damage the State.

Resorting to such ludicrous arguments to criticize the imprisonment of Afridi illustrates how weak the arguments against Pakistan on this issue are.

"Knowing assisting a foreign intelligence agency"! That is the argument that is yet to be made. Only when that case is made, do the rest of the points merit attention.

 

[AbhimanyuShrivastav]

Surrender Obama and Leon Panetta to the Pakistan courts and they won't escape severe sentencing either.

Is there a warrant in Pakistani courts against their names?? or only on defence forums?

 

[Bobshouse]

And i know the other thread has been closed but c'mon mods people want to talk about this...

Nobody is really disagreeing that Shakil Afridi has done the wrong by implication, but what about association?

What about the political decisions? How many concessional factors and appeasemenal indications have been made due to satisfy all parties concerned? I and everybody that knows what has happened would never deny the financial factors and state deception involved with Shakil Afridi's endevours, but what of the greater good and possible routing and non involvement of corrupt forces?

The infiltration of extremest forces among the Pakistani military is an entity of obvious worrisome.

Do you think Shakil Afridi should be given some leniency with such facts involved?

 

[SQ8]

Unfortunately in this case, the laws of the land and the events leading up to the operation have gone against what in its entirety(the death of OBL) was a good thing.
Shakil Afridi had no love of humanity that caused him to go and collect OBL's samples, he did it for money...
What he did allowed an external force to breach Pakistan's sovereignty(on principle anyway) and mount an attack on its soil without approval..hence a hostile attack on Pakistani soil.
So, on its basics.. Shakil Afridi conspired with external forces to launch an attack on his own country and is hence for all intents and purposes a traitor and punishable by death.
Whether his actions(selfish or not) led to a good thing(or not) is void in this matter to those that took the decision.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

"Knowing assisting a foreign intelligence agency"! That is the argument that is yet to be made. Only when that case is made, do the rest of the points merit attention.

The case has been made and he has been found guilty.

The reports on his interrogation, and reports from his staff at the time, indicate that he was aware he was assisting a foreign government, though he was not aware of exactly what he was assisting them with.

 

[CaptainJackSparrow]

The case has been made and he has been found guilty.

1. Without according him a lawyer (correct me if I'm wrong)

2. In a tribal court

3. Under an 80(?) year old law.

4. Far away from the jurisdiction of the court in whose domain the alleged crime took place.

You call that justice?

Anyways you should also take a look at this:

Watch @ 10:00 onwards.

Here's what he says:

Musharraf in his book, "In The Line of Fire", on Chapter No. 23, Page No. 237, says, in the context of terrorists captured in Pakistan and I quote:

"We have captured 689 and handed over 369 to the United States. We have earned bounties totaling millions of dollars."


Then he goes on to ask:

How exactly can Dr. Afiridi be singled out even if he earned $10,000?

In his words, "Main karun toh saala character dheela hai!"

Since when did actors of Pakistani government started accepting 'bounties' from a foreign government?

Aid I had heard of, but bounties?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Watch @ 10:00 onwards.

Here's what he says:

Musharraf in his book, "In The Line of Fire", on Chapter No. 23, Page No. 237, says, in the context of terrorists captured in Pakistan and I quote:

"We have captured 689 and handed over 369 to the United States. We have earned bounties totaling millions of dollars."


Then he goes on to ask:

How exactly can Dr. Afiridi be singled out even if he earned $10,000?

In his words, "Main karun toh saala character dheela hai!"

Since when did actors of Pakistani government started accepting 'bounties' from a foreign government?

Aid I had heard of, but bounties?

Perhaps, reading the previous posts would have helped, since this line of argument has already been answered:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...g-fussy-over-its-cia-agent-2.html#post2968271

Apparently such 'simple things' have to be explained to people with this irrational anti-Pakistan prejudice - A State, or certain State institutions, are authorized to cooperate with other States on various issues, and they undertake such cooperation by taking care that national security is not compromised in the process, and that the cooperation remains limited to the mutually agreed upon issues.

An individual acting without the knowledge and authority of the State, in knowingly assisting a foreign intelligence agency, is committing a crime, since such an individual could advertently or inadvertently compromise national security and damage the State.

Resorting to such ludicrous arguments to criticize the imprisonment of Afridi illustrates how weak the arguments against Pakistan on this issue are.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...fussy-over-its-cia-agent-2.html#ixzz1vt24sd5k

1. Without according him a lawyer (correct me if I'm wrong)

2. In a tribal court

3. Under an 80(?) year old law.

4. Far away from the jurisdiction of the court in whose domain the alleged crime took place.

You call that justice?

1. I do not have enough information to answer that
2. Yes - the age of a law/laws has no relevance here
3. It is still the law prevalent in that region, under agreement with the Tribes when they chose to become part of Pakistan, and therefore must be respected
4. Does the FCR (Tribal law) prevent the trial of individuals that belong to the region, but committed the alleged crime somewhere else? If the FCR does not prevent such a trial, then the location of the trial is not an issue.

 

[AbhimanyuShrivastav]

If all he was doing was taking money to 'legally lobby' on behalf of the US, perhaps.

Just a comment on your parallelism.

Dr Fai was doing anything BUT LEGALLY lobbying.. He was lobbying alright, but illegally since he chose to masquerade his Pakistani affiliation as a Kashmiri one.. Kind of like fraud..

But since he took the money from an intelligence agency to conduct espionage (and the fact that he did not know that he was helping look for OBL makes it worse since he could have been assisting the CIA in any manner of anti-Pakistan activitiy), his crime is a lot worse, treason in this case.

Is there a legal definition of treason under Pakistani Law ?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Just a comment on your parallelism.

Dr Fai was doing anything BUT LEGALLY lobbying.. He was lobbying alright, but illegally since he chose to masquerade his Pakistani affiliation as a Kashmiri one.. Kind of like fraud..

His lobbying was legal, a declaration of his affiliation was not necessary - what was illegal was the lack of declaration of the source of his income.

Is there a legal definition of treason under Pakistani Law ?

The Pakistani Constitution (of course Afridi was tried under Tribal Law so that might be slightly different) the definition of treason is as follows:

High treason.
[4A][(1) Any person who abrogates or subverts or suspends or holds in abeyance, or attempts or conspires to abrogate or subvert or suspend or hold in abeyance, the Constitution by use of force or show of force or by any other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason.]
(2) Any person aiding or abetting [4B][or collaborating] the acts mentioned in clause (1) shall likewise be guilty of high treason.
[4C][(2A) An act of high treason mentioned in clause (1) or clause (2) shall not be validated by any court including the Supreme Court and a High Court.]
(3) [5] [Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)] shall by law provide for the punishment of persons found guilty of high treason.

Part I : Introductory

 

[AbhimanyuShrivastav]

His lobbying was legal, a declaration of his affiliation was not necessary - what was illegal was the lack of declaration of the source of his income.

Not sure if that's right.. Under American law, all foreign agents (who receive lobbying funding from foreign govts) need to declare and register the same. He did not.. And hence illegally lobbied for Pakistani agenda while putting up a front of lobbying for Kashmiri cause.. hence the illegality...

His lobbying was legal, a declaration of his affiliation was not necessary - what was illegal was the lack of declaration of the source of his income.

Not sure if that's right.. Under American law, all foreign agents (who receive lobbying funding from foreign govts) need to declare and register the same. He did not.. And hence illegally lobbied for Pakistani agenda while putting up a front of lobbying for Kashmiri cause.. hence the illegality...

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Not sure if that's right.. Under American law, all foreign agents (who receive lobbying funding from foreign govts) need to declare and register the same. He did not.. And hence illegally lobbied for Pakistani agenda while putting up a front of lobbying for Kashmiri cause.. hence the illegality...

My point here is that the 'act of lobbying' and the 'means of lobbying employed by Fai' were legal and allowed under US law - the 'crime' was the 'lack of declaration and registration'. This is sort of analogous to 'driving a car is legal, but driving a car without registering it and/or no valid driving license is illegal'.

In the case of Afridi, the act he engaged in, unauthorized knowing collaboration with a foreign intelligence agency inside Pakistan, is illegal.

 

[gubbi]

The case has been made and he has been found guilty.

A case made under Tribal laws. Yes, how well that goes with delivering justice, we all know!

The reports on his interrogation, and reports from his staff at the time, indicate that he was aware he was assisting a foreign government, though he was not aware of exactly what he was assisting them with.

The first part of your statement contradicts the latter part, when taken in context. Individuals routinely help "foreign agencies" - NGOs, charity work etc. Did the doctor know he was working for CIA specifically? If he did, then, something is wrong on so many levels!!

My point here is that the 'act of lobbying' and the 'means of lobbying employed by Fai' were legal and allowed under US law - the 'crime' was the 'lack of declaration and registration'. This is sort of analogous to 'driving a car is legal, but driving a car without registering it and/or no valid driving license is illegal'.

Exactly, why drive without a license when there are rules? Isnt driving a privilege, and not a right?

Foreign Agents Registration Act

The act requires people and organizations that are under foreign control ("agents of a foreign principal") to register with the Department of Justice when acting in any capacity, even if only indirectly controlled, on behalf of a foreign principal. It also requires periodic disclosure of all activities and finances. The Act covers political activities, public relations counsel, publicity agents, information-service employees, political consultants, fundraisers or those who represent the foreign power before any agency or official of the United States government. It does not include news or press services not owned by the foreign principal.[9]

In the case of Afridi, the act he engaged in, unauthorized knowing collaboration with a foreign intelligence agency inside Pakistan, is illegal.

The point being, again, did the Dr. know he was working for the CIA? If so, there are so many things wrong on so many levels.!

 

[Barrack-Obummer]

Just admit you were knowingly harboring Bin Laden.