Doctor who helped CIA find Osama bin Laden convicted of treason by Pakistan

Started by jimmy olsen, May 23, 2012, 10:11:02 AM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6
User actions

Sheilbh

#45
May 24, 2012, 04:03:46 PM
Quote from: Viking on May 24, 2012, 03:45:21 PM
I don't agree that he couldn't expect anything but military action. The reason I think that is that the last few times the US found OBL in pakistan they didn't invade.
Okay.  But that was a while ago, at least to my knowledge.  While the biggest issue in Pakistani politics for the last few years has been the relationship with the US and drone attacks in the tribal regions, and Obama's remarks that he would use force if he got actionable intelligence that bin Laden was in Pakistan were very heavily reported there.  He could have not expected any military action, but I think you'd have to assume an extraordinary amount of naivete on his part to justify that.

Also does it even matter?  He knowingly gave information to a foreign power that led to a military attack on his country.  Surely that's treason regardless of whether or not he should have expected the attack?
Let's bomb Russia!

Viking

#46
May 24, 2012, 04:12:31 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 24, 2012, 04:03:46 PM
Quote from: Viking on May 24, 2012, 03:45:21 PM
I don't agree that he couldn't expect anything but military action. The reason I think that is that the last few times the US found OBL in pakistan they didn't invade.
Okay.  But that was a while ago, at least to my knowledge.  While the biggest issue in Pakistani politics for the last few years has been the relationship with the US and drone attacks in the tribal regions, and Obama's remarks that he would use force if he got actionable intelligence that bin Laden was in Pakistan were very heavily reported there.  He could have not expected any military action, but I think you'd have to assume an extraordinary amount of naivete on his part to justify that.

Also does it even matter?  He knowingly gave information to a foreign power that led to a military attack on his country.  Surely that's treason regardless of whether or not he should have expected the attack?

I'm not a lawyer but I don't think that is actually illegal or even treasonous. Remember, a the time of the raid the public position of Pakistan was that they didn't know where he was, they didn't think he was in pakistan and if he was he'd be arrested. He was looking for a fugitive from Pakistani justice.
First Maxim - "There are only two amounts, too few and enough."
First Corollary - "You cannot have too many soldiers, only too few supplies."
Second Maxim - "Be willing to exchange a bad idea for a good one."
Second Corollary - "You can only be wrong or agree with me."

A terrorist which starts a slaughter quoting Locke, Burke and Mill has completely missed the point.
The fact remains that the only person or group to applaud the Norway massacre are random Islamists.

Sheilbh

#47
May 24, 2012, 04:20:08 PM
So to be non-treasonous he should have told the Pakistanis.  He had very good reasons not to but that doesn't change the fact that most of the time it could be treasonous to be providing info to a foreign intelligence agency.  If it leads to a military attack I'm sure it almost always would be.
Let's bomb Russia!

Admiral Yi

#48
May 24, 2012, 04:32:43 PM
The information and the attack are two seperate acts.  The dude didn't set the policy to cap bin Laden.  It's not treasonous to pass on information unless it's a state secret.  You wouldn't be committing treason if you told the US ambassador that Tricky Dick lives in...wherever the hell he lives.

Viking

#49
May 24, 2012, 04:33:38 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 24, 2012, 04:20:08 PM
So to be non-treasonous he should have told the Pakistanis.  He had very good reasons not to but that doesn't change the fact that most of the time it could be treasonous to be providing info to a foreign intelligence agency.  If it leads to a military attack I'm sure it almost always would be.

It is not treasonous to give information to a foreign intelligence agency. Unless specifically made illegal you can give private, proprietary or public information to anybody you want to. It's only treason if the doctor knew that pakistan was hiding him.
First Maxim - "There are only two amounts, too few and enough."
First Corollary - "You cannot have too many soldiers, only too few supplies."
Second Maxim - "Be willing to exchange a bad idea for a good one."
Second Corollary - "You can only be wrong or agree with me."

A terrorist which starts a slaughter quoting Locke, Burke and Mill has completely missed the point.
The fact remains that the only person or group to applaud the Norway massacre are random Islamists.

grumbler

#50
May 24, 2012, 04:54:22 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 24, 2012, 03:13:36 PM
I think it was clear that the information would lead to a military attack of some sort on Pakistani soil.  The only way to make sure that happened with the approval and cooperation of Pakistan is by informing the Pakistani authorities.  Working with the Americans, while right, was helping a foreign power attack your country.  I don't see how that can be anything but treason.

I suspect that you are correct, in that Pakistan almost certainly uses the very broad British definition of treason as opposed to the very narrow American one.   This wouldn't be treason in the US, of course, since the US definition of treason is spelled out in the US constitution, and requires giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the US.

The definition of treason you use sucks, IMO, but you are almost certainly right that it fits him.
The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Bayraktar!

Siege

#51
May 24, 2012, 05:00:28 PM
Quote from: Tyr on May 24, 2012, 04:08:38 AM
You'd think getting a ticket to America would be a key part of agreeing to do this...

It was. But don't forget who we got in the White House.


"All men are created equal, then some become infantry."

"Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't."

"Laissez faire et laissez passer, le monde va de lui même!"

CountDeMoney

#52
May 24, 2012, 05:03:13 PM
Quote from: Siege on May 24, 2012, 05:00:28 PM
Quote from: Tyr on May 24, 2012, 04:08:38 AM
You'd think getting a ticket to America would be a key part of agreeing to do this...

It was. But don't forget who we got in the White House.

I forget.  Who we got in the White House?

DontSayBanana

#53
May 24, 2012, 07:57:03 PM
Quote from: Siege on May 24, 2012, 05:00:28 PM
It was. But don't forget who we got in the White House.

:yeahright: Wouldn't that be more likely to fall on Hillary?  Maybe Panetta?
Experience bij!

Eddie Teach

#54
May 24, 2012, 08:01:31 PM
"The buck stops here". In other words, it's Harry Truman's fault for his disastrous Mid-east policy, still bearing fruits 60-odd years later.
To sleep, perchance to dream. But in that sleep of death, what dreams may come?

grumbler

#55
May 24, 2012, 09:14:13 PM
Quote from: Siege on May 24, 2012, 05:00:28 PM
Quote from: Tyr on May 24, 2012, 04:08:38 AM
You'd think getting a ticket to America would be a key part of agreeing to do this...

It was. (snip)

Bullshit.  I am willing to bet dollars to donuts that he thought the Pakistani government would approve, and he'd be a bigger hero in Pakistan than in the US.

Unless you have evidence that he wanted to come to the US rather than stay in Pakistan, I call shenanigans on your claim that "it was" true that "getting a ticket to America would be a key part of agreeing to do this."

Magical thinking gets you nowhere, my friend.
The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Bayraktar!

Jaron

#56
May 24, 2012, 09:39:58 PM
In what is certainly going to be seen as another weak move by the Obama gov't, the US offers to pay Pakistan for the release of the captive doctor:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/24/us-pakistan-aid-doctor-bin-laden?newsfeed=true
Winner of THE grumbler point.

DontSayBanana

#57
May 24, 2012, 09:44:45 PM
The payment method should be missiles.  Express delivery.
Experience bij!

Admiral Yi

#58
May 24, 2012, 10:00:00 PM
Quote from: Jaron on May 24, 2012, 09:39:58 PM
In what is certainly going to be seen as another weak move by the Obama gov't, the US offers to pay Pakistan for the release of the captive doctor:

By whom?  I'm thumbs up.

CountDeMoney

#59
May 24, 2012, 10:01:44 PM
Quote from: Jaron on May 24, 2012, 09:39:58 PM
In what is certainly going to be seen as another weak move by the Obama gov't, the US offers to pay Pakistan for the release of the captive doctor:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/24/us-pakistan-aid-doctor-bin-laden?newsfeed=true

OMG HES APOLOGIZING FOR AMERICA
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6
User actions