SPOTLIGHT: Contempt: Gap between commonsense and legalities: detracts from respect for law! What exactly was the US/Afridi deal?

When we hear recent news of Dr Shakil Afridi we cannot help if (down the not-so-old memory lane) our thoughts go back to Dr Aafia Siddiqui sentenced by an American court in September 2010 to 86 years' imprisonment and to murderer Raymond Davis and his two killer friends, also fellow Americans, who flew back to the safety of their own country after committing known and unknown crimes in a country supposed to be their country's ally in its so called "war against terror".
Osama a handy bogey man?
Our thoughts also go back to the fact that Osama bin Laden was murdered in cold blood instead of being taken to America for a trial to substantiate to the world their claim that he was indeed the mastermind behind the high-tech attack on American targets which killed several thousand innocent Americans and his body made to mysteriously disappear. Such actions have led many to believe that Osama bin Laden's name only served as a bogey providing an excuse for American warlords to wage a crusade against Muslims around the world. Remember the story about weapons of mass destruction in possession of Saddam in Iraq?
Saboteur's pay According to published information Dr Shakil Afridi (an employee of the Government of Pakistan) was paid $10,000 by his American employers operating in Pakistan for his help in locating Osama through an operation camouflaged as a health related drive by the Government. No doubt, providing possible protection against any punitive action Pakistan might take if his heinous crime was uncovered, must have been part of the "package" deal between Americans and Afridi apart from other unknown parts of the largesse. He was an important and willing instrument in the hands of his American employers (most probably CIA people) who may have seen in Osama's capture a brightening prospect for Obama's reelection as President come 17 December 2012. The harm it could do (and did) to Pakistan was obviously not Dr Afridi's worry.
Superpower's cheek We recall that no sooner was Shakil Afridi arrested by our security in July 2011 for his role in the above crime, than American officials had started interfering in the matter by brazenly asking Pakistan to go easy on Afridi. No doubt American agencies do not want to lose credibility with the agents they have hired in other countries to do their bidding! And now as soon as the decision by the political administration of Khyber Agency to convict, the man who helped the CIA track down Osama and to award him 33 years in jail on charges of treason was made known, all hell appears to have broken lose and not just in America!
Pakistan "fined" For a start a "measured" fine was imposed on Pakistan at the rate of $1 million for each year of the sentence awarded to their agent. US senators lost no time in voting on Thursday to cut aid to Islamabad by $33 million. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called the sentence "unjust and unwarranted" and vowed to apply pressure on Pakistan on the issue. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, frequently seen on our TV screens these days said the US State Department "saw no reason for Pakistan to detain or charge Dr Afridi".
What Amnesty International said Prominent US senators on the Armed Services Committee representing the two main American political parties, Republicans and Democrats, in a joint statement called Afridi's sentence "shocking and outrageous". They went on to call Afridi's act not treason but a "heroic, courageous and patriotic" act as it "helped to locate the most wanted terrorist in the world". Hillary and the Senators should read what Amnesty International (AI) has said about the Abbottabad operation conducted by American soldiers. AI not only condemned US for its unlawful commando raid that killed Osama but said the action would appear to have been unlawful in view of the fact that since the Salala incident in November 2011 Pakistan has consistently said that the CIA action was "illegal and a violation of international law".
Pakistani sympathisers of Afridi Afridi's supporters are not confined to Americans. A number of Pakistanis have jumped in to defend Afridi, calling the sentence unduly harsh and trying to put Afridi's help to Americans in a kinder light. At least some of them (though not all) may be out to please America from whatever motive.
Interesting An interesting point to note is that security around prisoner Afridi has been enhanced. Is there fear that some infuriated Pakistani might take it upon himself to eliminate him or is there apprehension that America may attempt another Abbotabad to whisk away its protégé to safety? Several diplomats of foreign countries have sought permission to meet Afridi but he has been put off limits to them by a local court which is just as well. If anyone is to be allowed to see him he should be his family or his lawyer or the prosecutors. Why should foreigners be given access to him?
Hair-splitting versus common sense The much-awaited "judgement" of the Speaker was received midweek and brought forth both strong statements of appreciation and support and at the same time expressions of strong disapproval. As expected on one side was the ruling party and at least one ally. On the other side were opposition leaders whose views also found support from a number of legal and constitutional experts including retired judges with no political axes to grind. Both PTI and PMLN have decided to move the Supreme Court against the Speaker's ruling.
Play on the word ridicule In our view the main argument of the Speaker merely echoed what Aitzaz Ahsan, the counsel for the PM in the contempt case, has been reiterating ad infinitum: that the word "ridicule" was not included in the originally framed charge. In the counsel's opinion, in other words, disobeying Courts orders, criticising even making light of them does not amount to ridicule. The way Aitzaz has been changing his stances and emphasis during the course of his lengthy arguments obviously arises from his Counsellor "duty" to save his client one way or another and failing that to prolong the case as much as possible. Aitzaz holds that after the speaker's ruling, the Election Commission has no role in the matter.
Danger averted? The danger in this kind of legal quibbling is that people are confused by astute legal minds are to prove that what appears black to ordinary eyes is legally white and that the ruling of the Speaker (whose political and personal background raises questions in some minds) somehow outweighs any thing a large Supreme Court Bench might have to say without dissent on legal and constitutional questions. Aitzaz provides a rationale to the decision not to appeal by saying that the appeal might involve the risk of a harsher sentence by the Supreme Court. It as far as he is concerned the subject is closed! The PM is convicted but free to carry out business as usual! Fantastic!
([email protected])