Here we have a difference between Western and what boils down to Islamic legal theory: the Western relationship of the individual to the law is direct, whereas the Islamic has an intermediary.
If A person kills B person.
Can a totally unrelated person, person C, kill person A, assuming if it were up to the law, it would kill person A as well?
This is international norm nothing to do with Islamic or western. Otherwise why is Oracle suing Google for Android? Why shouldn't Oracle mount a team to steal Google's money, then later on leave it to the Courts to validate its previous action of taking Google's money.
First western law would punish Oracle for stealing money, then western law would say okay let's listen to this business of suing for patent infringement.
Reasonable doubt isn't enough of a standard?
It will fall flat since he never approached a competent Pakistani authority to interpret doubt.
The UNSC has classified reports of Pakistani noncompliance for the past six years. They could choose to release that at any time - would that make you happy?
I would like to read them and take them on merit. However noncompliance in what? HN issue and OBL issue are two different things. We openly reject US demands on HN.
Also note we have caught not one, but 5-6 high level AQ leaders and literally over 500 other AQ members. If this matter of noncompliance was judged by a competent authority your argument would fall flat. UNSC works on votes, not on reasoning and arguments. They can vote against you for not liking your face. What can you do about it?
I think we can agree that the allegation that the vaccinations were fake should never have occurred.
Meanwhile the facts, verified by NGOs (third parties) prove that people are paranoid and making life hell for vaccine drives. We don't know about fake vaccines, I believe it was Leon Panetta who argued that Saline solution was injected, which means what? Fake. But thats more to do with what third parties said. Allegations are allegations, people can allege anything, he has not received his sentencing based upon that, but on charges of treason. Further proving that the sentencing is on merit.
I do wonder how these tribal courts work. Obviously closed sessions. Which is odd because, presumably, the only secrets that could have been exposed were American ones, right? Unless, of course, Afridi's defense arguments were substantial and implicated Pakistanis as willing partners with international terrorists.
That is somewhere I think they dropped the ball. Basically the word tribal is being overplayed and is an outdated term, the official name is sessions court. But the sentencing remains extremely challengeable since all you need to do is appeal and it is automatically granted. This is something where you would appear for a traffic violation and face off with something equivalent to judge Judy. It's mostly one on one with the Judge. However I may be wrong on the finer points of this.
This case mandates Peshawar High Court time, which it would undoubtedly go to.
As VCheng argued before, it may be some gamesmanship from the state, which I think should not be done and he should be simply pursued for his crime. However I think now that they have put the thing in court, any appeal will also go through a higher court and the higher courts will not be open to the gamesmanship of the state and will again rule on merit.