US should respect decision to imprison Dr Afridi: Foreign Office

Sentence was in accordance with Pakistani laws, says FO spokesperson.


Web Desk/reuters May 24, 2012
US should respect decision to imprison Dr Afridi: Foreign Office

ISLAMABAD: The United States should respect a Pakistan court’s decision to imprison Dr Shakil Afridi, a doctor accused of helping the CIA find Osama bin Laden, the foreign ministry spokesman said on Thursday.  

“I think as far as the case of Afridi is concerned, it was in accordance with Pakistani laws and by the Pakistani courts, and we need to respect each other’s legal processes,” Moazzam Ali Khan told reporters.

The sentence of Dr Afridi irked from a few US officials who had earlier admitted Dr Afridi’s involvement in the Abbottabad raid and had called for his security.

After Dr Afridi was sentenced to 33 years imprisonment by a tribal court on Wednesday, US State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland said that there was no basis for Dr Afridi to be held, while US Republican Congressman, Dana Rohrabacher went a step ahead in his criticism of the sentence, calling it a “decisive proof that Pakistan sees itself as being at war” with the US.

COMMENTS (69)

Lala Gee | 12 years ago | Reply @Uza Syed: "Interesting question—–what about it——I guess you are familiar with this concept “Jurisdiction”." Let me admit that I deliberately put the first sentence in my comment just as a teaser and to check your acumen. How about the right of US Government to choose the venue of a trial. Consider the case of Dr. Afia Siddiqui. She lived in Boston, state of Massachusetts, committed an alleged crime in Bighram Airbase in Afghanistan, and was tried in a court in Fairfax Country, state of Virgina. Or, consider the trials being held in Guantanamo Bay by US Military Tribunals for crimes allegedly committed in all over the world. Do those courts have the "Jurisdiction" to try these cases? The fact is, USA government has the prerogative to chose the venue of a trial for any crime that comes under the "Jurisdiction" of Federal Government, and so is selection of venue, a privilege of GOP You talk about the due process, and of course everyone should be given this right. But what about those 600+ high level Al-Qaida operatives, including the 9/11 master mind, Khalid Shaikh Mohammad, and also the Ambassador of Taliban in Pakistan, Mullah Umer Zareef having the diplomatic immunity, Musharraf government handed over to USA without extending any due process. Neither USA nor any other country protested upon the violation of their legal rights and bypassing of due process; rather all applauded the actions of Pakistan. How all of a sudden, this due process became so important. What about the due process of those whose cases are being tried in US Military Tribunals in Guantanamo Bay, where the defense council has no right to see the evidence against their clients, or any right to cross questioning. In all countries of the world, secretly working as a paid agent of a foreign spy agency is considered an act of treason. There is no differentiation of good treachery and bad treachery based on the cause. Or you can provide me some reference where the law specifically permits such activity for good causes. USA did not spare Dr. Fai for breaking the law although he was working for a just cause. Similarly, the very same PPC laws you demand for the doctor, required him to inform the authorities ASAP when contacted by a foreign intelligence agency like CIA or RAW, but he opted not to and thus took law in his hands. This is same as killing someone by yourself if you know the guy is a murderer. Will such a person be spared in USA, or any other country, because he did a right(?) thing. I don't think so.
Javed khan | 12 years ago | Reply

The drama is still in progress.All including Afridi are actors playing various characters. Let s wait for end and then ll b able to offer comments.Anyhow nothing extraordinary is expected.

VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ