Share This Page

Lawyer quits case of Pakistan doctor who helped U.S. find bin Laden

| Sunday, May 11, 2014, 9:06 p.m.

PESHAWAR, Pakistan — The lawyer for the Pakistani doctor who helped the United States find Osama bin Laden said on Sunday that he wouldn't represent him any longer as a result of threats from militants, even as America pushes for the man to be freed.

Lawyer Samiullah Khan Afridi said he made the decision when he received what he described as a “final” warning from militants. Afridi said he represented Dr. Shakil Afridi on humanitarian grounds, but now it is not possible for him to continue. The two Afridis are not related.

“Now they have warned me to either quit the case or be ready to face the dire consequences,” Afridi said. “My family and I are under severe threat.”

The lawyer said the undue American pressure on Pakistan for his client's release also hurt him. Officials in the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad could not be reached for comment.

Dr. Shakil Afridi was initially sentenced to 33 years in prison in May 2012 on being convicted of providing money and medical treatment to Islamic militants in Khyber tribal region — not for helping the CIA track down bin Laden.

His family and the militants have denied the allegations. A Pakistani court later cut Afridi's sentence to 23 years on appeal.

Afridi is widely believed to have been targeted by Pakistani authorities for running the vaccination program that collected DNA to try to verify bin Laden's presence in Abbottabad.

U.S. commandos killed the al-Qaida chief in a unilateral raid in the town in 2011.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.