I've added a definition of treason, and at the end of the post is one reader's attempt to explain why Hillary Clinton made such a decision. Even if the reader is correct it still wouldn't answer my question about whether the decision is treasonous by the legal definition of term. The window is still open here for more attempts at answers.....
*********************
“[Pakistan's] army is going to think that no matter how angry the Americans are at them, they are utterly indispensable and they can violate in any way, shape or form U.S. law and the United States will massage its law to accommodate them. That’s how they are going to read this.”-- C. Christine Fair, Assistant Professor, Center for Peace and Security Studies at Georgetown University’s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service
*********************
Definition of treason under the United States Code, 18 U.S.C. § 2381: "[W]hoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States." -- From Wikipedia article on treason, United States section)
*********************
Will someone explain to me why Hillary Clinton's decision isn't considered treason, or at least grounds for President Obama to demand her resignation? I'm making a serious request, with no sarcasm intended. I need this explained to me, in particular because the excuse she gives for her decision isn't supported by any objective criterion.
October 5, 2012:
Pakistan freed of anti-terrorism obligations; U.S. billions flow insteadUPDATE 2:01 AM EDT
By Jonathan S. Landay
McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has refused for the first time to declare that Pakistan is making progress toward ending alleged military support for Islamic militant groups or preventing al Qaida, the Afghan Taliban or other extremists from staging attacks in Afghanistan.
Even so, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has quietly informed Congress that she’s waived the legal restrictions that would have blocked some $2 billion in U.S. economic and military aid to Pakistan. Disbursing the funds, she said in an official notice, is “important to the national security interests of the United States.”
Clinton’s decision illustrates how far the administration apparently has determined that it must go, after a near-breakdown in relations, to ensure Pakistan’s cooperation in the uphill U.S. effort to prevent Afghanistan collapsing into all-out civil war when American-led international combat forces complete a withdraw by the end of 2014.
Some experts, however, warned that the move might backfire. The waivers could encourage a belief among Pakistani commanders that their cooperation is so crucial that Washington will continue overlooking the Pakistani military’s refusal to end what U.S. officials charge is its support for Afghan insurgent groups or to shutter militant sanctuaries, they said.
“The army is going to think that no matter how angry the Americans are at them, they are utterly indispensable and they can violate in any way, shape or form U.S. law and the United States will massage its law to accommodate them,” said assistant professor Christine Fair, an expert at Georgetown University. “That’s how they are going to read this.”
Pir Zubair Shah, an expert with the Council on Foreign Relations, said Clinton’s decision might be intended as a warning to Pakistan that aid could be withheld next year if it doesn’t end the suspected collusion between its military and its chief spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate, and extremist groups.
“It can be a signal that . . . next time we won’t apply a waiver and will block the aid,” he said.
The State Department declined to respond to a request for comment.
Islamabad vehemently denies charges by top U.S. officials that the army-run ISI is aiding the Afghan Taliban and allied groups, such as the Haqqani network, as part of a strategy aimed at preventing rival India from gaining influence in Afghanistan after international troops withdraw.
In her September 13 notices, Clinton informed Congress that she was waiving provisions of the 2009 Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act and the State Department’s 2012 budget requiring that she certify that Islamabad has met certain conditions before some $2 billion in economic, military and counter-terrorism assistance can be disbursed.
Pakistan was required to have made progress in “ceasing support, including by any elements within the Pakistani military or its intelligence agency, to extremist groups,” especially those that have attacked U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan.
Islamabad also was required to have made progress toward stopping al Qaida, the Afghan Taliban, the Haqqani network and allied Pakistani extremists “from operating in the territory of Pakistan” and staging attacks in neighboring countries. It also must move toward shutting down “terrorist” bases in the tribal areas and other parts of its country.
Clinton didn’t disclose which specific prerequisites Pakistan failed to meet. Those details were classified.
It’s the first time that the Obama administration has waived the requirements, something the Bush administration did six times for democracy-related sanctions.
Until now, Clinton had certified Pakistani compliance even though U.S. commanders in Afghanistan and other U.S. officials had for years charged the Pakistani army and the ISI with supporting the Afghan Taliban and the Haqqani network.
In September 2011, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and retired Adm. Mike Mullen, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, explicitly accused the ISI of aiding Haqqani network attacks on U.S. targets in Afghanistan, including a strike against the U.S. Embassy.
Four days before she notified Congress she was waiving the conditions, Clinton decided – under pressure from Congress – to add the Haqqani network to the U.S. list of terrorist organizations. The Pakistani military, which for years has rejected U.S. demands that it move against the Haqqanis’ stronghold of North Waziristan, thinks that the group should participate in any settlement to the Afghan war.
Clinton’s decision to waive the conditions comes as the United States and Pakistan strive to rebuild a relationship battered by a series of events that began when a CIA contractor shot dead two alleged thieves in Lahore in January 2011. Ties also have worsened over intensified CIA drone strikes, which Pakistan charges are violating its sovereignty and killing civilians.
[...]
"Pundita, I think this article throws light on Clinton's decision:"
Pakistan, US business tycoons to meet in London
by Mehtab Haider
Thursday, October 04, 2012
From Print Edition
ISLAMABAD: Approximately 100 top-level business tycoons of Pakistan and the US will meet in London on October 4 and 5, 2012 during a joint conference organised by both the countries’ governments for providing an opportunity to explore investment opportunities after the signing of the Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT).
The business tycoons of both the sides will explore opportunities in areas of textile, energy and information technology amongst others.
Pakistan’s official delegation, led by Chairman of Board of Investment Saleem Mandviwalla and Secretary Commerce Munir Qureshi, will attend this two-day conference, while US Trade Representatives (USTR) and Deputy Special Envoy for Pakistan and Afghanistan Daniel Feldman will participate in it.
Mandviwalla said that the objective of this conference was to arrange financial assistance for Pakistani companies in areas of mutual interests.
“The BIT is expected to be signed by both the countries by the end of 2012, and its draft is currently under review by both the sides,” US Counselor for Economic Affairs Robert Ewing said while briefing a selected group of reporters here on Wednesday, just ahead of the scheduled conference.
The BIT, he said, would set grounds for granting market access under Generalisd System of Preference (GSP) Plus. There are certain criteria and requirements which Pakistan will have to follow for qualifying for the GSP plus, he added.
The US GSP program provides duty free entry to the US market for goods imported from designated beneficiary developing countries. According to data of US embassy, approximately 3,511 different products from Pakistan are eligible to enter the United States duty free under the GSP program.
The US businesses imported $18.5 billion worth of products under the GSP program in 2011, including $131 million from Pakistan.
1 comment:
Congratulations. You've discovered the Dept of State. Yaay!
They've been doing this since Alger Hiss and the rest of the Reds. Treason is a birthright of the High Born.
We need to divest ourselves of AF/PAK, Hegemony, and our Diplomatic Corps.
Post a Comment