KEEPING QUIET ABOUT DAVIS by Amy Davidson

The column by the Times’s Public Editor, Arthur Brisbane, on the case of Raymond Davis—the man who reportedly had some connection to the C.I.A. and is now in Pakistani custody after killing two men who, he has said, he thought were thieves—is genuinely puzzling. The Times reported last week that it had kept silent about Davis’s C.I.A. connection. Brisbane attempted to explain why. Here are the key passages:

The Times jumped on the story, but on Feb. 8, the State Department spokesman, P.J. Crowley, contacted the executive editor, Bill Keller, with a request. “He was asking us not to speculate, or to recycle charges in the Pakistani press,” Mr. Keller said. “His concern was that the letters C-I-A in an article in the NYT, even as speculation, would be taken as authoritative and would be a red flag in Pakistan.”

Mr. Crowley told me the United States was concerned about Mr. Davis’s safety while in Pakistani custody. The American government hoped to avoid inflaming Pakistani opinion and to create “as constructive an atmosphere as possible” while working to resolve the diplomatic crisis.

The Times acceded to the Obama Administration’s wishes, as did the Washington Post and the A.P. Brisbane concludes that “the Times did the only thing it could do,” even though “in practice, this meant its stories contained material that, in the cold light of retrospect, seems very misleading.” So the “only thing” the Times could do was be “misleading”? That question contains a lot of sub-questions. Here are some:

1. What was the risk to Davis, exactly? He is in the custody of Pakistan, one of our allies. It is not like he’s being held hostage in a cave somewhere, or on the run. One suggestion, laid out in the Post, is that a prison guard might have killed him out of anger; the Post mentions that other prisoners had, in fact, been killed by guards in the facility he was held in. Were those prisoners also working for the C.I.A.? (Or whatever agency Davis was affiliated with, as an “operative” or a contractor—his exact status is still not clear.) There was rage, maybe even life-threatening rage, at Davis in Pakistan even when the U.S. was pretending he was an ordinary diplomat—pulling out a Beretta on the streets of Lahore and shooting two people, then claiming immunity, will do that. He was burned in effigy before the Times used “the letters C-I-A.” One could just as easily argue that news that the American media covered up for Davis would make the Pakistani public even madder, and less willing to trust American justice and intentions, encouraging vigilantes.

(In any event, after the Guardian went with the story, the Administration told the Times that it needed twenty-four hours to get the Pakistanis to put him in a safer facility; if it took the Guardian story to persuade the Pakistanis, could one in the Times have facilitated a move weeks earlier?)

Or is the idea that the attacker wouldn’t be a rogue guard, but an Pakistani government operative sent to take him out, or maybe torture him for intelligence? There are a couple of problems with that: (a) the Pakistani government, if not the public, seems to have known who Davis was without American newspapers telling it; and (b) if we think that Pakistani security services torture or kill people because they are C.I.A. operatives, then why are we giving them so much taxpayer money?

Or would the story endanger his safety because it would undermine a claim to diplomatic immunity, exposing him to years in a Pakistani prison (not so good for one’s health) or even capital punishment? If so, does that count as a good reason? I am not sure of the points of international law here, and have read conflicting assertions about what Davis’s standing was, and exactly what sort of immunity he might have been eligible for. I also am not sure of the penalty for double murder in Pakistan. But if Davis isn’t entitled to diplomatic immunity then he isn’t entitled to diplomatic immunity. Do we believe that it’s the role of newspapers to pretend that he is, if he isn’t—to help the government make legally and factually false claims? (Is the press asked to suppress damaging details in cases of Americans charged with murders abroad who aren’t C.I.A. operatives?) And wouldn’t doing so endanger actual diplomats whose claims would, in the future, be treated with greater skepticism?

Maybe the danger was not to Davis but to the C.I.A.’s ability to operate with impunity within Pakistan. But that’s not the argument Brisbane presents, and has its own problems. (Is it the job of newspapers to create “as constructive an atmosphere as possible” for anything the government wants to do?) Anyway, the damage had been done by the incident itself; it was really a matter of making sense of the wreckage. And Davis was not arrested for spying but for killing people recklessly; the widow of one, an eighteen-year old, killed herself. Do journalists need, at the cost of their credibility, to deny these people’s survivors a day in court?

Maybe the Administration had good answers, and a better explanation of the danger to Davis; but those answers weren’t in the Times.

2. Who was the intended audience, or, rather, non-audience, for the silence? Put differently, who was this supposed to be kidding? Crowley, according to the Times, was not asking the paper to suppress something that hadn’t been reported but, as Keller put it, “not to speculate or recycle charges in the Pakistani press.” So news outlets were asked not to tell Americans, among others, what Pakistanis were already reading? (It is also interesting that this involved elevating the “authoritative” Times and disparaging the Pakistani press—which was actually ahead on the story.) Was the government, beyond its protestations about Davis’s safety, concerned about how this might affect American views of our wars, or cause people here to question elements of our involvement in Pakistan or our use of private contractors? (Davis had worked until some point for Blackwater, the company now known as Xe.) This relates to the next question:

3. How did agreeing to the Administration’s request affect not only what the Times, the Post, and the A.P. revealed, but how they reported the story? When Crowley asked the Times “not to speculate or recycle charges,” did he say the charges were false, or did he confirm them—was the problem that the speculation was unsubstantiated, or that it was true? Is “recycle” in this case a synonym for “follow up on,” “investigate,” or “pursue”? (The Times doesn’t exactly say what the paper knew when, although it quotes Washington editor Dean Baquet as saying that it had the information it needed “sometime before” the Guardian ran its piece.) Does feigning ignorance encourage actual ignorance—if nothing else as a way to avoid being “misleading” about what you do and don’t know? One would like to hear much more about how these news outlets, even just internally, interrogated the official story.

The restrictions may have hindered the paper in conveying just why Pakistanis were so angry. That is something that Americans—the families of our soldiers on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, and really everyone—deserve, and even need, to know. Brisbane did not accomplish that here, either. How is it that, in an eleven-hundred-word column that includes a quote from Bob Woodward about how “I learned a long time ago, humanitarian considerations first, journalism second,” there wasn’t room to mention that the death toll in the incident was not two, but three? After shooting the two men, Davis called our embassy for help, and a four-wheel-drive vehicle slammed its way through Lahore to get to him, driving recklessly, going up streets the wrong way, breaking traffic laws. Because this is real life and not an action movie, the car hit and killed a bystander. (I live in New York, a city in which, for years, the easiest way for the tabloids to excite rage was to point to diplomats who used their immunity to get out of parking tickets; how would that kind of driving go over here?)

Brisbane called this “a brutally hard call.” And, again, the Obama Administration may have told the Times things that the paper still hasn’t told its readers, which would make all of this seem a little more sensible than it does now. But that’s not what we’re left with. What we get, instead, is Brisbane’s credo: “Editors don’t have the standing to make a judgment that a story—any story—is worth a life.” It’s not so simple. Unless you are only covering the Oscars, you get into areas in which lives can be changed by your reporting, or your failure to report. You can’t simply abdicate. For one thing, doing so may cost more lives: reporting, say, that bad training or poor command judgment caused soldiers to kill civilians may make people angry at American soldiers, but it might lead to changes that keep more civilians from being killed, and stave off a subsequent cycle of anger and retribution. Our best defense when our government does something wrong is that we hold it accountable—that an eighteen-year-old widow can trust that we care, a little, about her abandonment. That is the nature of our system, and what prevents rage at an American operative from becoming rage broadly directed at “Americans.”

Also: governments are lazy, and politicians confuse risks to their careers with risks to their countries. If they can prevent the publication of embarrassing stories simply by repeating the word “danger,” then they will misuse and overuse that tactic. The press can’t let that happen. It’s a matter of responsibility.

*** February 28, 2011
Posted by Amy Davidson

Raymond Davis Case: This CIA agent is no diplomat

The US says Raymond Davis should have immunity in Pakistan. Just another attempt to flout the rule of law outside its borders

Craig Murray
guardian.co.uk,
Monday 28 February 2011 18.12 GMT

Pakistani security officials escort Raymond Davis to a court in Lahore. Photograph: Hamza Ahmed/AP
I tread with some caution in discussing the case of Raymond Davis, the CIA agent facing charges of double murder in Pakistan and the threat of the death penalty. I add my plea to the voices urging the Pakistani government to ensure Davis does not hang.

But one thing I can state for certain: Davis (as we will call him for now) is not a diplomat and does not possess diplomatic immunity. There is some doubt as to who he really is, with the charges against him in Pakistan including one that he obtained documents using a false identity.

Watching Barack Obama's presidency has been a stream of bitter disappointments. His endorsement of Davis as "our diplomat" and invocation of the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations was, in its sheer dishonesty, as sad an Obama moment as any.

As a general rule, international treaties are written in very plain language and are very accessible. That is certainly true of the Vienna convention. Unfortunately I can see scant evidence that any journalists have bothered to read it.

Leaving aside staff of international organisations recognised by the host country as having diplomatic status (and there has been no claim yet that Davis was actually working for Unicef), in bilateral diplomatic relations the provision for diplomatic immunity is tightly limited to a very small number of people. That makes sense when you consider that if Davis did have diplomatic immunity, he would indeed be able to avoid detention and trial on a murder charge. The world community is not going to make that impunity readily available.

Full diplomatic immunity is enjoyed only by "diplomatic agents". Those are defined at article 1 (e) of the Vienna convention as "the head of the mission or a member of the diplomatic staff of the mission". Helpfully the diplomatic staff are further defined in the preceding article as "having diplomatic rank". Those ranks are an ascending series of concrete titles from third secretary through to ambassador or high commissioner. Davis did not have a diplomatic rank.

But there is a second category of "administrative and technical staff" of a mission. They enjoy a limited diplomatic immunity which, however, specifically excludes "acts performed outside the course of their duties". (Vienna convention article 37/2.) Frantic off-the-record briefing by the state department reflected widely in the media indicates that the US case is that Davis was a member of technical staff covered by this provision.

But in that case the US has to explain in the course of precisely which diplomatic duties Davis needed to carry a Glock handgun, a headband-mounted flashlight and a pocket telescope. The Vienna convention lists the legitimate duties of an embassy, and none of them need that kind of equipment.

It appears in any event unlikely that Davis ever was a member of the technical staff of the embassy or consulate. Under article 10 of the Vienna convention the host authorities must be formally informed – by diplomatic note – of the arrival and departures of such staff, and as embassies under article 11 are subject to agreed numerical limits, that in practice occurs when another member of staff is leaving. If this was not done Davis was not covered even in the course of his duties.

Pakistani senior ex-military sources tell me there is no note appointing Davis as embassy or consulate staff, and that appears to pass a commonsense test – if the note exists, why have the Americans not produced it?

Finally, possession of a diplomatic passport does not give you diplomatic status all over the world.

I hope this helps clarify a position that the US government, and the media it influences, have deliberately muddied. Sadly this whole episode reflects the US's continuing contempt for the basic fabric of international law. It sits with its refusal to sign up to the international criminal court so that US citizens may not be held accountable for war crimes, with its acknowledged overseas assassination programme, its one-sided extradition treaties and claims of extra-territorial jurisdiction over offences committed outside the US.

We hoped it might get better under Obama. It is not.

"We've got a very simple principle here that every country in the world that is party to the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations has upheld in the past and should uphold in the future, and that is, if our diplomats are in another country, then they are not subject to that country's local prosecution," Obama said in a press conference. "We expect Pakistan, that's a signatory and recognises Davis as a diplomat, to abide by the same convention ... I'm not going to discuss the specific exchanges that we've had [with the Pakistani government], but we've been very firm about this being a priority."

'US unable to hijack Middle East uprising'

'US unable to hijack Middle East uprising' Sun Feb 27, 2011 3:30PM Interview with International Lawyer, Franklin Lamb.

People cheer during a celebration of the liberation of eastern Libya On Friday, massive Arab Revolutionary demonstrations were held throughout the Middle East, amid Gaddafi's brutal mercenary militia killing more protesters in Libya.

Press TV interviewed International Lawyer, Franklin Lamb from Beirut regarding the uprisings in the Middle East.

Press TV: I would like to welcome Dr. Franklin Lamb from Beirut now. Thank you so much for being with us. Now yesterday was an interesting day Mr. Lamb. We saw more protests of course in Yemen, in Libya, in Bahrain and in Jordan. We also saw a revisiting of the previous two revolutionary countries meaning Tunisia and Egypt. What do you say about the state of affairs in the region? Do you think what we are looking at is something that is going to evolve into permanent change, or is there concern that right now as the Tunisians and Egyptians seem to be expressing that there is just figureheads changing, and not enough significant changes? What direction do you see the region going? Are we seeing total change?

Lamb: Thank you. This regional revolution, this standing up or uprisings, I think it has got legs and it's broadening and deepening and unlike what Condoleezza Rice said here about in 2006 regarding a new Middle East, it's a new Middle East and probably the opposite of what she had in mind. That is where we are and yes, I think it will sustain. I think the danger is lessening of hijacking this revolution.

I site as evidence of that the committees of the different countries particularly in Egypt. They are calling it a coalition to protect the games they achieve. That means when they meet the military that they hold them to their words. They cite the demands for progress and verification of real change. Of course, it's in the hands of the people. We cannot help them other than to encourage this historic movement. I have confidence from your footage, and other reports that these people are serious. It is fundamental. It is a deep endemic revolt after years of oppression. I disagree with my colleague Robert Fisk who says there is no religious aspect. I think the justice and equality that is inherent in Islam and its practitioners is a factor not the Wahabbie -Salafee sort of extremist versions, but the quest for justice is a factor in here. I don't think these people are going to allow this to be hijacked. It may take more time.

Press TV: You said Islam is very much a part of these movements. Why do you think this is the case with much of the mainstream media? It is more human rights or equal rights that the protesters are demanding. Why is it that the international media present it as if Islam would be exclusive of that?

Lamb: Well I think it's just fundamentally ignorance. We are a long way away, and we have so many of our own problems in the West for the last hundred years with our own culture. We just do not understand Islam. I can tell you here in Beirut when Westerns come here and see Islam in practice. The beauty of Islam is that it's a way of life and it's not some sort of jihadist that are media likes to identify with. Part of the problem is we have been a little lazy in the West. We have not had respect of others enough to study Islam. Of course, there will be no revolution without Islam because the essence of Islam is of course the quest for justice. Therefore, I think that is our problem. We have to catch up. We are going to catch up in the sense that we are not in control.

I believe the beliefs of these people and these images are going to be sustained. It's not going to be easy and we are worried about certain aspects of that. However, I think the leadership will come and the way of life and the culture of resistance are too strong. The idea is too powerful to be turned to the side. There will be efforts to hijack it. The paradigm of the West has been three things: Put in a despot or someone who represents stability, make sure that they are compliant in terms of military means and as you know, we have those 800 bases in 130 countries, and then finally support our foreign policy with respect to Israel. The despots were happy to do that. Are these people going to be satisfied with the occupation of Palestine? Of course not. Is it at the forefront right now? No, but is it fundamental? Yes, so I am optimistic.

I don't see that the West has the power to turn this thing aside. I think the region is changing dramatically. It's a fundamental change and the most the West can do is to respect these new governments on the basis of equality, and apply the tenets in the United Nations charter such as principals of equality and I think there can then be peace and good relations. I know that sounds a little idealistic, but I have confidence that these people are going to demand that. I hope that the American people will also demand that.

Press TV: They are saying, “Down, down Hamad!” in reference to the Bahraini King. Mr. Lamb, how significant is this chant, as it seems they are not only asking for a change in the government but total regime change in Bahrain.

Lamb: Yes, and these images are enormously powerful. Who is going to hijack [this uprising]? We are all worried about hijacking the revolution. I don't think these people will easily be hijacked. Hamed was considered a special case. You know the little reforms he did. He is a favorite of the Americans because not only [his country is home to the US] fifth fleet but [because] of his connection with Saudi Arabia etc…

As a King, he will likely start to blame the problems on the government, make some changes and survive. The presidents will fall in the Middle East ... The monarchs are in a better position some say but they may not be the case with Hamad. I mean the family has been I think you said 300 years or something. He is in danger now with his kind of persistence in resisting. That is the key to success and all of this is simply persistence and persistence. Thus, I think it's very significant. It has to be of enormous concern to Saudi Arabia and Washington. The big question is can he survive? The images suggest that he may not survive.

Press TV: On that note I would like to thank you International Lawyer, and Middle East Analysis, Dr. Franklin Lamb from Beirut.

NM/PKH

A Crazy Prophet

A Crazy Prophet
By Uri Avnery
http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/A-Crazy-Prophet-by-Uri-Avnery-110228-212.html

"WHY DON'T the masses stream to the square here, too, and throw Bibi out?" my taxi driver exclaimed when we were passing Rabin Square. The wide expanse was almost empty, with only a few mothers and their children enjoying the mild winter sun.

The masses will not stream to the square, and Binyamin Netanyahu can be thrown out only through the ballot box.

If this does not happen, Israelis can blame nobody but themselves.

If the Israeli Left is unable to bring together a serious political force, which can put Israel on the road to peace and social justice, it has only itself to blame.

We have no bloodthirsty dictator whom we can hold responsible. No crazy tyrant will order his air force to bomb us if we demand his ouster.

Once there was a story making the rounds: Ariel Sharon -- then still a general in the army -- assembles the officer corps and tells them: "Comrades, tonight we shall carry out a military coup!" All the assembled officers break out in thunderous laughter.

DEMOCRACY IS like air -- one feels it only when it is not there. Only a person who is suffocating knows how essential it is.

The taxi driver who spoke so freely about kicking Netanyahu out did not fear that I might be an agent of the secret police, and that in the small hours of the morning there would be a knock on his door. I am writing whatever comes into my head and don't walk around with bodyguards. And if we did decide to gather in the square, nobody would prevent us from doing so, and the police might even protect us.

(I am speaking, of course, about Israel within its sovereign borders. None of this applies to the occupied Palestinian territories.)

We live in a democracy, breathe democracy, without even being conscious of it. For us It feels natural, we take it for granted. That's why people often give silly answers to public opinion pollsters, and these draw the dramatic conclusion that the majority of Israeli citizens despise democracy and are ready to give it up. Most of those asked have never lived under a regime in which a woman must fear that her husband will not come home from work because he made a joke about the Supreme Leader, or that her son might disappear because he drew some graffiti on the wall.

The Knesset members who were chosen in democratic elections spend their time in a game of who can draw up the most atrocious racist bill. They resemble children pulling off the wings of flies, without understanding what they are doing.

To all these I have one piece of advice: look at what is happening in Libya.

DURING THE whole week I spent every spare moment glued to Aljazeera.

One word about the station: excellent.

It need not fear comparison with any broadcaster in the world, including the BBC and CNN. Not to mention our own stations, which serve a murky brew concocted from propaganda, information and entertainment.

Much has been said about the part played by the social networks, like Facebook and Twitter, in the revolutions that are now turning the Arab world upside down. But for sheer influence, Aljazeera trumps them all. During the last decade, it has changed the Arab world beyond recognition. In the last few weeks, it has wrought miracles.

To see the events in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and the other countries on Israeli, American or German TV is like kissing through a handkerchief. To see them on Aljazeera is to feel the real thing.

All my adult life I have advocated involved journalism. I have tried to teach generations of journalists not to become reporting robots, but human beings with a conscience who see their mission in promoting the basic human values. Aljazeera is doing just that. And how!

These last weeks, tens of millions of Arabs have depended on this station in order to find out what is happening in their own countries, indeed in their home towns -- what is happening on Habib Bourguiba Boulevard in Tunis, in Tahrir Square in Cairo, in the streets of Benghazi and Tripoli.

I know that many Israelis will consider these words heretical, given Aljazeera's staunch support of the Palestinian cause. It is seen here as the arch-enemy, no less than Osama bin Laden or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But one simply must view its broadcasts, to have any hope of understanding what is happening in the Arab world, including the occupied Palestinian territories.

When Aljazeera covers a war or a revolution in the Arab world, it covers it. Not for an hour or two, but for 24 hours around the clock. The pictures are engraved in one's memory, the testimonies stir one's emotions. The impact on Arab viewers is almost hypnotic.

MUAMMAR QADDAFI was shown on Aljazeera as he really is -- an unbalanced megalomaniac who has lost touch with reality. Not in short news clips, but for hours and hours of continuous broadcasts, in which the rambling speech he recently gave was shown again and again, with the addition of dozens of testimonies and opinions from Libyans of all sectors -- from the air force officers who defected to Malta to ordinary citizens in bombed Tripoli.

At the beginning of his speech, Qaddafi (whose name is pronounced Qazzafi, whence the slogan "Ya Qazzafi, Ya Qazzabi" -- Oh Qazzafi, Oh Liar) reminded me of Nicolae Ceausescu and his famous last speech from the balcony, which was interrupted by the masses. But as the speech went on, Qaddafi reminded me more and more of Adolf Hitler in his last days, when he pored over the map with his remaining generals, maneuvering armies which had already ceased to exist and planning grandiose "operations", with the Red Army already within a few hundred yards from his bunker.

If Qaddafi were not planning to slaughter his own people, it could have been grotesque or sad. But as it was, it was only monstrous.

While he was talking, the rebels were taking control of towns whose names are still engraved in the memories of Israelis of my generation. In World War II, these places were the arena of the British, German and Italian armies, which captured and lost them turn by turn. We followed the actions anxiously, because a British defeat would have brought the Wehrmacht to our country, with Adolf Eichmann in its wake. Names like Benghazi, Tobruk and Derna still resound in my ear -- the more so because my brother fought there as a British commando, before being transferred to the Ethiopian campaign, where he lost his life.

BEFORE QADDAFI lost his mind completely, he voiced an idea that sounded crazy, but which should give us food for thought.

Under the influence of the victory of the non-violent masses in Egypt, and before the earthquake had reached him too, Qaddafi proposed putting the masses of Palestinian refugees on ships and sending them to the shores of Israel.

I would advise Binyamin Netanyahu to take this possibility very seriously. What will happen if masses of Palestinians learn from the experience of their brothers and sisters in half a dozen Arab countries and conclude that the "armed struggle" leads nowhere, and that they should adopt the tactics of non-violent mass action?

What will happen if hundreds of thousands of Palestinians march one day to the Separation Wall and pull it down? What if a quarter of a million Palestinian refugees in Lebanon gather on our Northern border? What if masses of people assemble in Manara Square in Ramallah and Town Hall Square in Nablus and confront the Israeli troops? All this before the cameras of Aljazeera, accompanied by Facebook and Twitter, with the entire world looking on with bated breath?

Until now, the answer was simple: if necessary, we shall use live fire, helicopter gunships and tank cannon. No more nonsense.

But now the Palestinian youth, too, has seen that it is possible to face live fire, that Qaddafi's fighter planes did not put an end to the uprising, that Pearl Square in Bahrain did not empty when the king's soldiers opened fire. This lesson will not be forgotten.

Perhaps this will not happen tomorrow or the day after. But it most certainly will happen -- unless we make peace while we still can.

Pakistan arrests another US CIA security contractor

ISI tells American agency to unmask all its covert operatives after arrest of Aaron DeHaven in Peshawar, over visa expiry

Declan Walsh in Islamabad
guardian.co.uk, Friday 25 February 2011

Supporters of the religious party Jamaat-e-Islami rally against CIA employee Raymond Davis, accused of murdering two Pakistanis. Photograph: K.M.Chaudary/AP Pakistani authorities have arrested a US government security contractor amid a worsening spy agency row between the countries, with Pakistani intelligence calling on the Americans to "come clean" about its network of covert operatives in the country.

The arrest came at the start of the murder trial of another American held in Pakistan, the CIA agent Raymond Davis.

Peshawar police arrested Aaron DeHaven, a contractor who recently worked for the US embassy in Islamabad, saying that his visa had expired.

Little was known about DeHaven except that his firm, which also has offices in Afghanistan and Dubai, is staffed by retired US military and defence personnel who boast of direct experience in the "global war on terror".

It was unclear whether his arrest was linked to escalating tensions between the Inter-Services Intelligence and the CIA, triggered by the trial of Davis, who appeared in handcuffs at a brief court hearing in a Lahore jail.

The 36-year-old former special forces soldier, whose status as a spy was revealed by the Guardian, refused to sign a chargesheet presented to him by the prosecution, which says he murdered two men at a traffic junction on January 27.

Davis instead repeated his claim of diplomatic immunity – a claim supported by President Barack Obama, who called him "our diplomat".

The press and public were excluded from the hearing in Kot Lakhpat jail, where Pakistani officials have taken unusual measures to ensure Davis's security amid a public clamour for his execution.

The furore has also triggered the most serious crisis between the ISI and the CIA since the 9/11 attacks. A senior ISI official told the Guardian that the CIA must "ensure there are no more Raymond Davises or his ilk" if it is to repair the tattered relationship of trust.

"They need to come clean, tell us who they are and what they are doing. They need to stop doing things behind our back," he said. There are "two or three score" covert US operatives roaming Pakistan, "if not more", he said.

CIA spokesman George Little said that agency ties to the ISI "have been strong over the years, and when there are issues to sort out, we work through them. That's the sign of a healthy partnership".

Pakistani civilian officials warned that the ISI was amplifying fallout from the Davis crisis through selective media leaks to win concessions from the US.

"They're playing the media; in private they're much more deferential to the Americans," said a senior government official, who added that the two agencies had weathered previous disagreements in private.

The crisis has sucked in the military top brass from both countries. On Tuesday, a Pakistani delegation led by General Ashfaq Kayani met US generals, led by Admiral Mike Mullen, at a luxury resort in Oman to hammer out the issues.

The US stressed that it "did not want the US-Pakistan relationship to go into a freefall under media and domestic pressures", according to an account of the meeting obtained by Foreign Policy magazine.

The ISI official agreed that future co-operation was vital. "They need us; we need them," he said. "But we need to move forward in the right direction, based on equality and respect."

The media furore over Davis has fuelled scrutiny of other American security officials in Pakistan and their visa arrangements, and may have led police to Aaron DeHaven in Peshawar on Friday.

DeHaven runs a company named Catalyst Services which, according to its website, is staffed by retired military and defence department personnel who have "played some role in major world events" including the collapse of the Soviet Union, the military mission to Somalia and the "global war on terror". Services offered include "full-service secure residences", protective surveillance and armed security.

One prospective customer who met DeHaven last year described him as a small, slightly-built man, who wore glasses and had broad knowledge of Pakistani politics. DeHaven said he had lived in Kandahar, Afghanistan, for one year, had married a Pakistani woman along the border with Afghanistan, and spoke Pashto fluently.

He said he moved his base from Peshawar to Islamabad last year over suspicions that he worked for Blackwater, the controversial US military contracting firm.

His business partner is listed on company documents as Hunter Obrikat with an address in Charlotte, North Carolina. The Guardian was unable to contact either men at listed numbers in Pakistan, Afghanistan, the US and Dubai.

US embassy spokeswoman Courtney Beale said DeHaven was "not a direct employee of the US government" but added that details could not be confirmed until a consular officer had met him. The arrest is another sign of brittle relations between the two countries.

US officials in Washington argue that Davis is a registered diplomat who should be immediately released under the provisions of the Vienna convention. But that plea has fallen on deaf ears in Pakistan, where the papers have been filled with lurid accounts of the spy's alleged activities, including unlikely accounts of him working with the Taliban and al-Qaida.

The US has also struck some blows in the covert public relations war. After a lull of three weeks, the CIA restarted its drone campaign in the tribal belt last Monday, with near-daily attacks on militant targets since then. "It's their way of showing who's in charge," said a senior Pakistani official.

And at the Oman meeting, Mullen warned Kayani he would apply "other levers" to the Pakistanis if a solution to the case was not found, the official added.

Since Davis's CIA status was revealed, US officials have told Pakistani officials that their best hope is in offering compensation to the families of the two men Davis shot in Lahore. Religious parties, however, have pressured relatives not to accept money.

Meanwhile, the Zardari government says it will settle the issue of Davis's diplomatic status at a court hearing scheduled for 14 March.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/25/pakistan-arrests-security-contractor-cia

Craig Murray - Raymond Davis Does Not Have Diplomatic Immunity

Raymond Davis Does Not Have Diplomatic Immunity

Take this as definitve from a former Ambassador

There are five circumstances in which Raymond Davis, the American killer caught in Pakistan, might have diplomatic immunity. They are these.

1) He was notified in writing to the government of Pakistan as a member of diplomatic staff of a US diplomatic mission in Pakistan, and the government of Pakistan had accepted him as such in writing.

2) He was part of an official delegation engaged in diplomatic negotiations notified to the government of Pakistan and accepted by them.

3) He was a member of staff of an international organisation recognised by Pakistan and was resident in Pakistan as a member of diplomatic staff working for that organisation, or was in Pakistan undertaking work for that organisation with the knowledge and approval of the Pakistani authorities.

4) He was an accredited diplomat elsewhere and was in direct tranist through Pakistan to his diplomatic posting.

5) He was an accredited courier carrying US diplomatic dispatches in transit through Pakistan.

2) to 5) plainly do not apply. The Obama administration is going for 1). My information, from senior Pakistani ex-military sources that I trust, is firmly that the necessary diplomatic exchange of notes does not exist that would make Davis an accredited US diplomat in Pakistan, but that the State Department is putting huge pressure on the government of Pakistan to overlook that fact. This passes a commonsense test - if the documents did exist. La Clinton would have waved them at us by now.

A brilliant article here by Glenn Greenwald.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/02/21/heartsandminds/index.html

New CIA Spin: Raymond Davis Was Monitoring Terrorists

New CIA Spin: Raymond Davis Was Monitoring Terrorists
Feb 23rd, 2011

CLICK THE VIDEO

The new American spin as this clip indicates is that Raymond Davis and
CIA were spying on militant groups protected by ISI. So CIA and Davis
are good guys and ISI are the bad ones. What that mainstream US media continues to hide is Davis’s CIA’s links
to terrorists on the Afghan border who continue to receive money and
weapons to target Pakistan. In this clip, intelligence affairs
correspondent Mark Mazzetti of New York Times accepts he was ‘under
pressure’ from US govt. and CIA not to reveal Davis’s ID. What he
doesn’t say is that there is more pressure on US media not to discuss
anything on how CIA is abetting terror inside Pakistan. [Video clip courtesy MSNBC's The Daily Rundown. Limited clip for
illustration purposes only. MSNBC's rights reserved]

Sri Lanka to end Pakistan's cricketing isolation with October series in country

Sri Lanka has decided to end Pakistan's cricketing isolation in October-November by touring the country to play three Test matches, five One-dayers and one Twenty20 match.

Sri Lanka will thus become the first nation to tour Pakistan after the terror attack in March 2009 in Lahore.

Sri Lanka is scheduled to tour Pakistan in October this year under the Future Tests Programme.

The attacks on the Sri Lanka team bus on March 9, 2009, killed eight people and injured seven Sri Lanka players as well as their assistant coach, leading to the suspension of all international cricket in Pakistan.

The suspension also meant Pakistan has been forced to play their home series in the United Arab Emirates, England and New Zealand for the last two years.

Pakistan Cricket Board welcomed the statement of Chairman Sri Lanka Cricket, Somachandra de Silva, on playing in Pakistan for their next series in October, Gulf News reports.

Commenting on the development, PCB Chairman Ijaz Butt said, "The comments of De Silva are reassuring and will help a long way in restoring the confidence of international community in playing cricket in Pakistan."

Butt also went on to say: "Sri Lanka is a brotherly nation and they have always stood by our side whenever we have needed them. Whatever happened was tragic and every cricket loving Pakistani was feeling sad for the Sri Lankan Team in 2009."

Expressing the feelings of Pakistan fans, Butt said: "Pakistani fans are missing the big events of cricket at home and they are waiting for the international teams to visit Pakistan."

"We are in constant touch with International Cricket Council, The Task Team on Pakistan and the other Boards in this regard and are hopeful of international cricket return to Pakistan very soon", he added. (ANI)

Calcutta News.Net
Friday 25th February, 2011 (ANI)

US ‘ready to mend Pakistan ties’

WASHINGTON, Feb 25: The United States has revived high-level diplomatic and military contacts with Pakistan, indicating a desire to put behind the bitterness created by the arrest of a CIA contractor in Lahore, diplomatic sources told.

On Wednesday, when the US and Pakistani military chiefs had a day-long meeting in Oman, Pakistan`s Ambassador Husain Haqqani was invited to the State Department for a formal meeting with Marc Grossman, the new US Envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

During the meeting, the State Department informed the ambassador that Mr Grossman planned to visit Islamabad early next month for exploratory talks with Pakistani leaders.

Although Mr Grossman served in Islamabad from 1976 to 1983, this would be his first visit to the country since his appointment earlier this month as US special representative for the region, replacing the late Richard Holbrooke.

“There`s no severance of relations,” said a diplomatic source while describing the impact of Raymond Davis`s arrest on US-Pakistan ties. “The Americans were still talking to the Pakistanis but almost always focused on the Davis affair.”

In Wednesday`s meeting, the source said, the Americans did not raise this issue. “Instead, they expressed the desire to move ahead with the efforts to build a strategic relationship with Pakistan.”

The source said that while the trilateral — Afghanistan, Pakistan, the US — talks scheduled in Washington this week had been postponed, the strategic dialogue would go ahead as planned.

The US-Pakistan strategic talks were scheduled next month and may still be delayed but would be held “more or less as planned”, the source said. The source confirmed a news report that the Davis dispute had strained relations between the CIA and the ISI but both sides had agreed to mend those ties as well.

“Misunderstandings and suspicions,” said the source while explaining what caused the tensions between the two spy agencies.

“The Pakistanis complained that the Americans were working behind their back, against the spirit of the partnership,” the source added, while “the Americans felt that the ISI was protecting some insurgents”.

In November, WikiLeaks confirmed that large numbers of US special operations forces had been operating inside Pakistan with or without Islamabad`s consent.

The source also confirmed that the Pakistan Embassy had issued thousands of visas to Americans, more than 400 on a single day. “But all those visas were issued with Islamabad`s consent,” said the source.

CIA agent Raymond Davis worked for private security firm Xe, formerly known as Blackwater

US reveals that CIA agent Raymond Davis worked for private security firm Xe, formerly known as Blackwater

US official Raymond Davis, arrested for double murder, had “close links” with Taliban and was “instrumental” in recruiting youths for it, a media report claimed on Tuesday, close on the heels of reports in the US that he was a CIA agent.

The “close ties” of Davis, arrested in Lahore on January 27 for killing two men he claimed were trying to rob him, with Tehrik-e-Taliban came out during a probe, The Express Tribune reported quoting an unnamed official of Punjab Police.

“Davis was instrumental in recruiting young people from Punjab for the Taliban,” the official said. The report came a day after The New York Times said that Davis “was part of a covert, CIA-led team of operatives.”

The Express Tribune said that call records retrieved from mobile phones found on Davis had established his links with 33 Pakistanis, including 27 militants from Lashkar-e-Jhangvi. The report claimed Davis was “said to be working on a plan to give credence to the US notion that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are not safe.”

The report came a day after The NYT, citing US government officials , said that Davis "was part of a covert, CIA-led team of operatives conducting surveillance on militant groups deep inside the country." 

Among the groups that Davis was keeping an eye on was the banned LeT, which carried out the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks, the NYT said. 

Meanwhile, a Pakistani court accepted the government's request to hold the trial of Davis in the heavilyguarded Kot Lakhpat jail in Lahore , where he is currently lodged, for security reasons. 

The Obama administration on Monday insisted that he still has diplomatic immunity under international law and Pakistan should release him forthwith . Soon after, the US state department wheeled out one of its "foremost experts in international law" to make the case that regardless of Davis' reported affiliation, he was entitled to diplomatic immunity because the US had clearly intimated to Pakistani government that he is a member of the administrative and technical staff under Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. 

Sources also said that Pakistan had been told he is an intelligence operative working undercover. 

THE CURIOUS CASE OF RAYMOND DAVIS
Pakistan & US are at loggerheads over the arrest of Davis, who is facing trial for gunning down two men in Lahore. The two sides differ on diplomatic immunity for Davis. Other disputed points in the case: 

THE SHOOTING 
Cops say Davis fired at the two motorcycle-borne men when they tried to stop his car; the duo were ostensibly chasing him after his vehicle bumped a rickshaw US says Davis believed his life was in danger after one of the men 'cocked his pistol and pointed towards' him 

SELF-DEFENCE 
Davis and US say he acted in self-defence after the two men tried to rob him at gunpoint 
Punjab law minister says the weapon carried by one of the victims wasn't loaded and thus Davis can't claim selfdefence ; Lahore top cops says Davis fired at one of the men as they were fleeing 

THE VICTIMS 
Davis and US say the two men were robbers Pak media & politicians dismiss suggestions that the duo were ISI operatives and term them 'innocent youths' with no criminal record

US gives fresh details of CIA killer in Pakistan

Raymond Davis, held in Pakistan on double murder charges for a shooting in Lahore last month, is employed by the CIA as a contractor. Photograph: Reuters

US officials have provided fresh details about Raymond Davis, the

CIAagent at the centre of a diplomatic stand-off in

Pakistan, including confirmation that he had worked for the private security contractor Xe, formerly known as Blackwater. They also disclosed for the first time that he had been providing security for a CIA team tracking militants.

Davis was attached to the CIA's Global Response Staff, whose duties include protecting case officers when they meet with sources. He was familiarising himself with a sensitive area of Lahore on the day he shot dead two Pakistanis.

The New York Times, Washington Post, Associated Press and other media outlets reported for the first time that Davis is a CIA employee. They said they had been aware of his status but kept it under wraps at the request of US officials who said they feared for his safety if involvement with the spy agency was to come out. The officials claimed that he is at risk in the prison in Lahore. The officials released them from their obligation after

the Guardian on Sunday reported that Davis was a CIA agent.

Davis shot dead two Pakistanis in Lahore last month

who he says had been trying to rob him. A third Pakistani man was killed by a car driven by Americans apparently on their way to rescue Davis.

Confirmation that he worked for Xe could prove even more problematic than working for the CIA, given the extent of hatred towards Blackwater, whose staff have gained a reputation in Pakistan as trigger-happy. For Pakistanis the word "Blackwater" has become a byword for covert American operations targeting the country's nuclear capability. Newspaper reports have been filled with lurid reports of lawless operatives roaming the country.

US officials have reiterated their concern about Lahore's Kot Lakhpat jail where Davis is being held, saying he had been moved to a separate section of the prison, that the guards' guns had been taken away from for fear they might kill him, and that detainees had been previously killed by guards. They are also concerned about protesters storming the prison or that he might be poisoned, and that dogs were being used to taste or smell the food for poison.

However, the authorities in Pakistan stressed the stringent measures they have put in place to protect Davis in Kot Lakhpat following angry public rallies in which his effigy was burned and threats from extremist clerics.

PJ Crowley, the US state department spokesman, said: "Obviously, we are concerned about his safety. We have had multiple conversations with the government of Pakistan regarding his current surroundings. They have told us that he is in the safest possible location in Lahore. And clearly, we hold the government of Pakistan fully responsible for his safety."

Surveillance cameras are trained on his cell in an isolation wing, and a ring of paramilitary troops are posted outside. About 25 jihadi prisoners have been transferred to other facilities.

The revelations about Davis will complicate further

the impasse between the US and Pakistan. Washington says he has diplomatic immunity and should be released but the Pakistan government is in a bind, facing the danger of a public backlash if it complies.

Until Sunday, the US had said Davis was a diplomat, doing technical and administrative work at the embassy. It says that because he has diplomatic immunity, he should be released immediately.

The Pakistani prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani, told parliament on Monday he would safeguard the country's "sovereignty and dignity" as it sought to resolve the diplomatic impasse with the US. "We are firmly resolved to adopt a course that accords with the dictates of justice and the rule of law. My government will not compromise on Pakistan's sovereignty and dignity," said Gilani.

The Obama administration is exerting fierce pressure on Pakistan to release Davis. But President Asif Ali Zardari's government, faced with a wave of public outrage, has prevaricated on the issue, and says it cannot decide on immunity issue until 14 March. For many Pakistanis the case has come to represent their difficult relationship with the US, in which multibillion dollar aid packages are mingled with covert activities targeting Islamist extremists.

Davis is currently on Pakistan's "exit control list", meaning he cannot leave the country without permission. But the two men who came to his rescue in a jeep that knocked over and killed a motorcyclist are believed to have already fled the country. Davis claimed to be acting in self-defence, firing on a pair of suspected robbers. But eyebrows were raised when it emerged that he shot the men 10 times, one as he fled the scene.

Pakistani prosecutors say Davis used excessive force and have charged him with two counts of murder and one of illegal possession of a Glock 9mm pistol. There have also been claims that the dead men were working for the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency, with orders to follow Davis.

The military spy agency cooperates with the CIA in its tribal belt drone programme, but resents US intelligence collection elsewhere in the country.In spite of the lurid conspiracy tales in Pakistan about Blackwater, US officials say that in reality Blackwater has had two major contracts in Pakistan - loading missiles onto CIA drones at the secret Shamsi airbase in Balochistan, and supervising the construction of a police training facility in Peshawar. The Davis furore has not, however, stopped the controversial drone strike programme. News emerged of a fresh attack on a militant target in South Waziristan, the first in nearly one month. Pakistani intelligence officials told AP that foreigners were among the dead including three people from Turkmenistan and two Arabs.

Rocky relations

The CIA and Pakistan's ISI have long had a rocky relationship. It started in the 1980s jihad, when the ISI funnelled billions of dollars in CIA-funded weapons to anti-Soviet rebels in Afghanistan.

But the two fell out in 2001 over CIA accusations that the ISI was playing a "double game" – attacking some Islamist militants while secretly supporting others.

In August 2008 the CIA deputy chief, Stephen Kappes, flew to Islamabad with evidence suggesting the ISI plotted the attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul that killed 54 people. The ISI, in turn, complained that the US came with unrealistic expectations and an aggressive attitude.

Yet at the same time the agencies co-operated closely, mostly on the CIA drone campaign against al-Qaida militants along the Afghan border.

In 2009 the ISI praised the CIA for killing the Pakistani

Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud. But recently things soured again. Last December the CIA station chief was forced to quit Pakistan after being publicly identified (US officials blamed an ISI leak); while Pakistani spies were angered that their chief, General Shuja Pasha, was named in a US lawsuit brought in a New York court by victims of the 2008 Mumbai attacks.

Declan Walsh

Raymond Davis to be tried in jail

Published: February 22, 2011

Police escort an armoured vehicle carrying Raymond Davis, as it arrives at court in Lahore on February 11, 2011. PHOTO: AFP/FILE

LAHORE: Lahore’s session court on Tuesday approved a jail trial of Raymond Davis, which will commence on February 25 at Kot Lakhpat Jail in the provincial capital.

The Punjab government’s prosecution department had submitted an application for the jail trial in the court of Additional Sessions Judge Mohammad Yousaf.

The application cited security reasons for the trial to be held in court, stating that it was not possible to produce Davis in court on different dates.

The court accepted the application and allowed the jail trial.

Non-diplomatic identity card

A letter from the United States Embassy reveals that the mission had asked the Pakistani Foreign Office to issue a non-diplomatic identity card to Raymond Davis in January 2010.

The letter was produced by Senator Tariq Azeem on Express 24/7 show Witness with Quatrina.

Commenting on the letter, a US Embassy spokesperson said the Pakistan government’s external procedures on issuing diplomatic or non-diplomatic identity cards were not relevant to the Davis case.

The official said Pakistan’s procedures had no bearing on Raymond Davis who enjoys diplomatic immunity under the Vienna Convention.

The spokesperson said the letter shown on the show was a formal notification by the US government stating that Davis was a member of the administrative and technical staff at the embassy.

Driver of consulate vehicle still missing

Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) says the Punjab government sent six letters to the federal government, requesting assistance in finding the driver of the US consulate vehicle that ran over a third Pakistani after the Lahore shooting.

The Civil Lines Superintendent of Police (SP) also contacted the US Consulate in Lahore for information on the vehicle and its driver, but the consulate could not comment as it had not been directed by the US government to do so.

OUR DIPLOMAT IN PAKISTAN

“Our diplomat in Pakistan’ was how President Obama described Raymond Davis now uncovered as a member of a covert CIA team operating under cover inside Pakistan. The disclosure came after his cover was blown by British media and a gag order on US media that was to have facilitated Davis’ extradition under diplomatic immunity was lifted because it no longer served any purpose.

The United States Department of State issues a Diplomatic Identity Card to all diplomats accredited to the US. This is what the card says front and back:

DIPLOMATIC
IDENTIFICATION CARD

Number:                                                                                                                                                         (PHOTO)
Expires
DOB Name Title
Mission
Location

SEE REVERSE FOR STATEMENT OF IMMUNITY
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This person has been duly notified to the Department of State and under international law enjoys immunity from criminal jurisdiction. The bearer shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention, but may be given a notice of violation. The bearer shall be treated with due respect and all appropriate steps taken to prevent any attack on the bearer’s person, freedom, or dignity.

LAW ENFORCEMENT INQUIRIES SHOULD BE DIRECTED                                            IF FOUND, RETURN TO:
TO (202) 647-1985 FROM 8 AM TO 5 PM EASTERN TIME                                           Office of Foreign Missions—
AND (202)647-7277 AT ALL OTHER TIMES.

Does the Pakistan Foreign Office issue such identification after it has been ‘duly notified ‘by the sending country about the status of an Embassy employee? If not, why not? If yes, then did Davis have such identification and was his status notified by the US Department of State to the Pakistan Foreign Office and if it was then surely there is a record of that notification. Why does a court have to decide the diplomatic status of a covert CIA agent? The Foreign Office should do so---especially after Davis has been exposed for what he actually is, so that the court can then concentrate on the killing of three Pakistanis, the suicide of a fourth, the ‘disappearance’ of those in the follow-up vehicle and their status and manner of extradition to the US. Having a diplomatic passport does not automatically qualify a person for diplomatic immunity.

The undercover CIA operation uncovered must now be closed down including the ‘safe house’ being used by them under cover of the US Consulate in Lahore. Pakistan’s entire counter intelligence apparatus must swing into action to discover, apprehend and expose all other Davis types operating under cover in the country. Citizens should be advised to exercise extreme caution in interaction with US personnel and be aware of the pitfalls of renting property to them without verification and clearance. There have been cases in the past where US personnel in unmarked cars refused police checks and refused to even lower their windows to answer questions. This calls for a proper agreement that must define status and behavior and visa procedures. Pakistan has to assert itself regardless of the consequences---this is what Pakistanis are demanding from their government. If Pakistan is a US ally and the US-Pakistan relationship is strategic then surely there is no need for covert CIA-Special Forces Operations deep inside Pakistan unless the entire relationship is a cover for gaining access for sinister designs. This is the perception that must be dispelled. ‘Davis ‘ is time for a new beginning.

Reports of a CIA-ISI feud, of danger to Davis while in custody, of US trying to foster a proxy war in Pakistan in connivance with some Indian and Afghan interests, of US plans to destabilize Pakistan especially Baluchistan—all need a response and the best response is a renewed US-Pakistan relationship with  suspicious underhand activity suspended. Before weighing in with coercive pressure President Obama, Secretary Clinton, Senator Kerry and Admiral Mullen needed to have their facts straight unless they still think what happened in Lahore does not matter. To Pakistanis it does matter.

By Ahsan Waheed

http://www.zoneasia-pk.com/ZoneAsia-Pk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3673:our-diplomat-in-pakistan&catid=70:free-talk&Itemid=84&sms_ss=twitter&at_xt=4d638e4da93c7cd6,0

The NYT's journalistic obedience

Earlier today, I wrote in detail about new developments in the case of Raymond Davis, the former Special Forces soldier who shot and killed two Pakistanis on January 27, sparking a diplomatic conflict between the U.S. (which is demanding that he be released on the ground of "diplomatic immunity") and Pakistan (whose population is demanding justice and insisting that he was no "diplomat").  But I want to flag this new story separately because it's really quite amazing and revealing.

Yesterday, as I noted earlier, The Guardian reported that Davis -- despite Obama's description of him as "our diplomat in Pakistan" -- actually works for the CIA, and further noted that Pakistani officials believe he worked with Blackwater.  When reporting that, The Guardiannoted that many American media outlets had learned of this fact but deliberately concealed it -- because the U.S. Government told them to:  "A number of US media outlets learned about Davis's CIA role but have kept it under wraps at the request of the Obama administration."

Now it turns out that The New York Times -- by its own shameless admission -- was one of those self-censoring, obedient media outlets.  Now that The Guardian published its story last night, the NYT just now published a lengthy article detailing Davis' work -- headlined:  "American Held in Pakistan Shootings Worked With the C.I.A." -- and provides a few more details:
The American arrested in Pakistan after shooting two men at a crowded traffic stop was part of a covert, C.I.A.-led team of operatives conducting surveillance on militant groups deep inside the country, according to American government officials. . . . Mr. Davis has worked for years as a C.I.A. contractor, including time at Blackwater Worldwide, the controversial private security firm (now called Xe) that Pakistanis have long viewed as symbolizing a culture of American gun slinging overseas.

But what's most significant is the paper's explanation for why they're sharing this information with their readers only now:
The New York Times had agreed to temporarily withhold information about Mr. Davis’s ties to the agency at the request of the Obama administration, which argued that disclosure of his specific job would put his life at risk. Several foreign news organizations have disclosed some aspects of Mr. Davis's work with the C.I.A.. On Monday, American officials lifted their request to withhold publication, though George Little, a C.I.A. spokesman, declined any further comment.

In other words, the NYT knew about Davis' work for the CIA (and Blackwater) but concealed it because the U.S. Government told it to.  Now that The Guardian and other foreign papers reported it, the U.S. Government gave permission to the NYT to report this, so now that they have government license, they do so -- only after it's already been reported by other newspapers which don't take orders from the U.S. Government.

It's one thing for a newspaper to withhold information because they believe its disclosure would endanger lives.  But here, the U.S. Government has spent weeks making public statements that were misleading in the extreme -- Obama's calling Davis "our diplomat in Pakistan" -- while the NYT deliberately concealed facts undermining those government claims because government officials told them to do so.  That's called being an active enabler of government propaganda.  While working for the CIA doesn't preclude holding "diplomatic immunity," it's certainly relevant to the dispute between the two countries and the picture being painted by Obama officials.  Moreover, since there is no declared war in Pakistan, this incident -- as the NYT puts it today -- "inadvertently pulled back the curtain on a web of covert American operations inside Pakistan, part of a secret war run by the C.I.A. "  That alone makes Davis' work not just newsworthy, but crucial.

Worse still, the NYT has repeatedly disseminated U.S. Government claims -- and even offered its own misleading descriptions --without bothering to include these highly relevant facts.  See, for instance, its February 12 report ("The State Department has repeatedly said that he is protected by diplomatic immunity under the Vienna Convention and must be released immediately"); this February 8 article (referring to "the mystery about what Mr. Davis was doing with this inventory of gadgets"; noting "the Pakistani press, dwelling on the items in Mr. Davis’s possession and his various identity cards, has been filled with speculation about his specific duties, which American officials would not discuss"; and claiming:  "Mr. Davis's jobs have been loosely defined by American officials as 'security' or 'technical,' though his duties were known only to his immediate superiors"); andthis February 15 report (passing on the demands of Obama and Sen. John Kerry for Davis' release as a "diplomat" without mentioning his CIA work).  They're inserting into their stories misleading government claims, and condescendingly summarizing Pakistani "speculation" about Davis' work, all while knowing the truth but not reporting it.

Following the dictates of the U.S. Government for what they can and cannot publish is, of course, anything but new for the New York Times.  In his lengthy recent article on WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, NYTExecutive Editor Bill Keller tried to show how independent his newspaper is by boasting that they published their story of the Bush NSA program even though he has "vivid memories of sitting in the Oval Office as President George W. Bush tried to persuade [him] and the paper's publisher to withhold the eavesdropping story"; Keller neglected to mention that the paper learned about the illegal program in mid-2004, but followed Bush's orders to conceal it from the public for over a year -- until after Bush was safely re-elected.

And recently in a BBC interview, Keller boasted that -- unlike WikiLeaks -- the Paper of Record had earned the praise of the U.S. Government for withholding materials which the Obama administration wanted withheld, causing Keller's fellow guest -- former British Ambassador to the U.N. Carne Ross -- to exclaim: "It's extraordinary that the New York Times is clearing what it says about this with the U.S. Government."  The BBC host could also barely hide his shock and contempt at Keller's proud admission: 
HOST (incredulously): Just to be clear, Bill Keller, are you saying that you sort of go to the Government in advance and say: "What about this, that and the other, is it all right to do this and all right to do that," and you get clearance, then?

Obviously, that's exactly what The New York Times does.  Allowing the U.S. Government to run around affirmatively depicting Davis as some sort of Holbrooke-like "diplomat" -- all while the paper uncritically prints those claims and yet conceals highly relevant information about Davis because the Obama administration told it to -- would be humiliating for any outlet devoted to adversarial journalism to have to admit.  But it will have no such effect on The New York Times.  With some noble exceptions, loyally serving government dictates is, like so many American establishment media outlets, what they do; it's their function:  hence the name "establishment media."
 
UPDATE:  From a few people in comments (and via email), there are several objections/dissents to some of the arguments here.   My responses to them are here.
 
UPDATE II:  At his news conference last week, this is what President Obama said about the Davis situation:
With respect to Mr. Davis, our diplomat in Pakistan, we've got a very simple principle here that every country in the world that is party to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations has upheld in the past and should uphold in the future. And that is if -- if our diplomats are in another country, then they are not subject to that country's local prosecution.

This is how the New York Times characterized that statement:  "Without describing Mr. Davis’s mission or intelligence affiliation, President Obama last week made a public plea for his release."

It's one thing for a newspaper to withhold information because it genuinely believes its publication will endanger lives (and I'd love to hear the explanation about why this would).  But this situation goes far beyond that.  The NYT was regularly printing government claims like the one above ("our diplomat in Pakistan") which were at best misleading and likely false, and also including their own misleading claims in these stories ("the mystery about what Mr. Davis was doing with this inventory of gadgets").  But they had information in their possession -- and concealed it -- which undermined (if not entirely negated) the truth of these statements. 

There's a big difference between simply withholding information to protect lives and actively enabling and publishing misleading propaganda.  More to the point, there is simply no justification -- none -- for a newspaper to allow government officials to run around misleading the public, and to print those misleading statements, all while concealing information (at the Government's request) which reveal those claims to be factually dubious.

BY GLENN GREENWALD

CIA Presence Now Official in Pakistan

As American newspapers lifted a self-imposed gag on the CIA links of Raymond Davis, in place on the request of the US administration, The Express Tribune has now learnt that the alleged killer of two Pakistanis had close links with the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP).

The New York Times reported on Monday that Davis “was part of a covert, CIA-led team of operatives conducting surveillance on militant groups deep inside the country, according to American government officials.”

This contradicts the US claim that Davis was a member of the ‘technical and administrative staff’ of its diplomatic mission in Pakistan.

Davis was arrested on January 27 after allegedly shooting dead two young motorcyclists at a crowded bus stop in Lahore. American officials say that the arrest came after a ‘botched robbery attempt’.

“The Lahore killings were a blessing in disguise for our security agencies who suspected that Davis was masterminding terrorist activities in Lahore and other parts of Punjab,” a senior official in the Punjab police claimed.

“His close ties with the TTP were revealed during the investigations,” he added. “Davis was instrumental in recruiting young people from Punjab for the Taliban to fuel the bloody insurgency.” Call records of the cellphones recovered from Davis have established his links with 33 Pakistanis, including 27 militants from the TTP and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi sectarian outfit, sources said.

Davis was also said to be working on a plan to give credence to the American notion that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are not safe. For this purpose, he was setting up a group of the Taliban which would do his bidding.

The larger picture

Davis’s arrest and detention has pulled back the curtain on a web of covert American operations inside Pakistan.

The former military ruler Pervez Musharraf had cut a secret deal with the US in 2006, allowing clandestine CIA operations in his country. This was done to make the Americans believe that Islamabad was not secretly helping the Taliban insurgents.

Under the agreement, the CIA was allowed to acquire the services of private security firms, including Blackwater (Xe Worldwide) and DynCorp to conduct surveillance on the Taliban and al Qaeda.

According to The New York Times, even before his arrest, Davis’s CIA affiliation was known to Pakistani authorities. It added that his visa, presented to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in late 2009, describes his job as a “regional affairs officer,” a common job description for officials working with the agency.

American officials said that with Pakistan’s government trying to clamp down on the increasing flow of CIA officers and contractors trying to gain entry to Pakistan, more of these operatives have been granted “cover” as embassy employees and given diplomatic passports.

However, “The government and security agencies were surprised to know that Davis and some of his colleagues were involved in activities that were not spelled out in the agreement,” a source told The Express Tribune.

“Davis’s job was to trail links of the Taliban and al Qaeda in different parts of Pakistan. But, instead, investigators found that he had developed close links with the TTP,” added the source.

Investigators had recovered 158 items from Davis, which include a 9mm Gloc Pistol, five 9mm magazines, 75 bullets, GPS device, an infrared torch, a wireless set, two mobile phones, a digital camera, a survival kit, five ATM cards, and Pakistani and US currency notes, sources said.

The camera had photographs of Pakistan’s defence installations.

Intelligence officials say that some of the items recovered from Davis are used by spies, not diplomats. This proves that he was involved in activities detrimental to Pakistan’s national interests.

The Punjab law minister has said that Davis could be tried for anti-state activities. “The spying gadgets and sophisticated weapons recovered are never used by diplomats,” Rana Sanaullah told The Express Tribune.

He said some of the items recovered from Davis have been sent for a detailed forensic analysis. “A fresh case might be registered against Davis under the [Official] Secrets Act once the forensics report was received,” he said.

Sanaullah said that Davis could also be tried under the Army Act. To substantiate his viewpoint, he said recently 11 persons who had gone missing from Rawalpindi’s Adiyala jail were booked under the Army Act.

However, a senior lawyer said that only the Army has the authority to register a case under the Army Act of 1952 against any person who is involved in activities detrimental to the army or its installations.

“Such an accused will also be tried by the military court,” Qazi Anwer, former president of the Supreme Court Bar Association said. He added that the civil authorities could register a case of espionage against any person.

But interestingly, despite all the evidence of Davis’s involvement in espionage, the federal government is unlikely to try him for spying.

“He will be prosecuted only on charges of killing of two men in Lahore,” highly-placed sources told The Express Tribune.

The Davis saga has strained relations between Pakistan and the United States, creating a dilemma for the PPP-led government.

More pressure

The pressure on the Pakistan government to release Davis has been steadily intensifying.

According to The New York Times, “there have been a flurry of private phone calls to Pakistan from Leon E Panetta, the CIA director, and Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, all intended to persuade the Pakistanis to release the secret operative.”

Article Source:
By: Qaiser Butt

http://www.zoneasia-pk.com/ZoneAsia-Pk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3666:cia-agent-davis-had-ties-with-local-militants&catid=38:terrorism&Itemid=61

Raymond Davis case: Victims’ families being pressured by religious groups

Raymond Davis case: Victims’ families being pressured by religious groups


BY OMAR FAROOQUE, ON FEBRUARY 22ND, 2011

The families of the two people allegedly murdered by Raymond Davis are coming under pressure from politicians and religious groups not to strike any deals that would allow for Davis’ release.

Waseem Shamshad, elder brother of Fahim, one of the young men killed, told The Express Tribune

that the families are coming under conflicting pressures. He claimed that on one hand the government is pressuring the victims’ families to withdraw the case against Davis, while several religious and political groups were pressuring them not to accept any deal that would allow Davis to walk free.

When he was alone, Shamshad freely named the parties that were urging him to keep pursuing the murder charge against Davis.

“Jamaat-e-Islami, Islami Jamiat-e-Tulaba, Tehrik-e-Insaf, Insaf Students Federation and Jamaatud Dawa,” he said, listing off the parties which had called him.

When he was joined by his lawyer, however, Shamshad retracted his earlier statement about the Jamaatud Dawa, saying that they were not pressuring the family at all. He also seemed to change his tone about his feelings towards the affair, making it sound like he wanted revenge for his brother’s death.

“We only want hanging of Davis at that very place where he killed our brothers,” he said.

Nevertheless, he also made it evident that the public anger against Davis’ alleged crimes would make it very difficult for the family to accept any compromise or deal, even if they wanted to.

Since his brother’s death, Shamshad’s house has been visited by many political leaders, including Imran Khan, head of the Tehrik-e-Insaaf, and Munawwar Hasan, leader of the Jamaat-e-Islami. The Jamaatud Dawa held a rally that began at the family’s house and ended at Qurtaba Chowk, the place where Fahim was killed.

He said his mother, Haleema Bibi (55), was unable to believe that her son and daughter-in-law were dead.

“She often calls Fahim and Shumaila as if she sees them in front of her but finding them nowhere she starts weeping,” said Shamshad. “Being the youngest brother, Faizan was dearest to all of us – four brothers and two sisters.”

Shamshad claimed that US Senator John Kerry had wanted to visit the family, but that he had refused to meet the American legislator. He also denied allegations that the US government had attempted to bribe the family with money or the promise of visas to the United States.

By: Rana Tanveer
http://www.area148.com/cms/?p=2418#more-2418

American Who Sparked Diplomatic Crisis Over Lahore Shooting Was CIA Spy

Pakistani authorities charged Raymond Davis with murder, but the Obamaadministration has insisted he is an 'administrative and technical official' attached to the US consulate in Lahore and is entitled to diplomatic immunity.

The American who shot dead two men in Lahore, triggering a diplomatic crisis between Pakistan and the US, is a CIA agent who was on assignment at the time.

Raymond Davis has been the subject of widespread speculation since he opened fire with a semi-automatic Glock pistol on the two men who had pulled up in front of his car at a red light on 25 January.

Pakistani authorities charged him with murder, but the Obama administration has insisted he is an "administrative and technical official" attached to its Lahore consulate and has diplomatic immunity.

Based on interviews in the US and Pakistan, the Guardian can confirm that the 36-year-old former special forces soldier is employed by the CIA. "It's beyond a shadow of a doubt," said a senior Pakistani intelligence official. The revelation may complicate American efforts to free Davis, who insists he was acting in self-defence against a pair of suspected robbers, who were both carrying guns.

Pakistani prosecutors accuse the spy of excessive force, saying he fired 10 shots and got out of his car to shoot one man twice in the back as he fled. The man's body was found 30 feet from his motorbike.

"It went way beyond what we define as self-defence. It was not commensurate with the threat," a senior police official involved in the case told the Guardian.

The Pakistani government is aware of Davis's CIA status yet has kept quiet in the face of immense American pressure to free him under the Vienna convention. Last week President Barack Obama described Davis as "our diplomat" and dispatched his chief diplomatic troubleshooter, Senator John Kerry, to Islamabad. Kerry returned home empty-handed.

Many Pakistanis are outraged at the idea of an armed American rampaging through their second-largest city. Analysts have warned of Egyptian-style protests if Davis is released. The government, fearful of a backlash, says it needs until 14 March to decide whether Davis enjoys immunity.

A third man was crushed by an American vehicle as it rushed to Davis's aid. Pakistani officials believe its occupants were CIA because they came from the house where Davis lived and were armed.

The US refused Pakistani demands to interrogate the two men and on Sunday a senior Pakistani intelligence official said they had left the country. "They have flown the coop, they are already in America," he said.

ABC News reported that the men had the same diplomatic visas as Davis. It is not unusual for US intelligence officers, like their counterparts round the world, to carry diplomatic passports.

The US has accused Pakistan of illegally detaining him and riding roughshod over international treaties. Angry politicians have proposed slashing Islamabad's $1.5bn (£900m) annual aid.

But Washington's case is hobbled by its resounding silence on Davis's role. He served in the US special forces for 10 years before leaving in 2003 to become a security contractor. A senior Pakistani official said he believed Davis had worked with Xe, the firm formerly known as Blackwater.

Pakistani suspicions about Davis's role were stoked by the equipment police confiscated from his car: an unlicensed pistol, a long-range radio, a GPS device, an infrared torch and a camera with pictures of buildings around Lahore.

"This is not the work of a diplomat. He was doing espionage and surveillance activities," said the Punjab law minister, Rana Sanaullah, adding he had "confirmation" that Davis was a CIA employee.

A number of US media outlets learned about Davis's CIA role but have kept it under wraps at the request of the Obama administration. A Colorado television station, 9NEWS, made a connection after speaking to Davis's wife. She referred its inquiries to a number in Washington which turned out to be the CIA. The station removed the CIA reference from its website at the request of the US government.

Some reports, quoting Pakistani intelligence officials, have suggested that the men Davis killed, Faizan Haider, 21, and Muhammad Faheem, 19, were agents of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence spy agency (ISI) and had orders to shadow Davis because he crossed a "red line".

A senior police official confirmed US claims that the men were petty thieves – investigators found stolen mobiles, foreign currency and weapons on them – but did not rule out an intelligence link.

A senior ISI official denied the dead men worked for the spy agency but admitted the CIA relationship had been damaged. "We are a sovereign country and if they want to work with us, they need to develop a trusting relationship on the basis of equality. Being arrogant and demanding is not the way to do it," he said.

Tensions between the spy agencies have been growing. The CIA Islamabad station chief was forced to leave in December after being named in a civil lawsuit. The ISI was angered when its chief, General Shuja Pasha, was named in a New York lawsuit related to the 2008 Mumbai attacks.

Although the two spy services co-operate in the CIA's drone campaign along the Afghan border, there has not been a drone strike since 23 January – the longest lull since June 2009. Experts are unsure whether both events are linked.

Davis awaits his fate in Kot Lakhpat jail in Lahore. Pakistani officials say they have taken exceptional measures to ensure his safety, including ringing the prison with paramilitary Punjab Rangers. The law minister, Sanaullah, said Davis was in a "high security zone" and was receiving food from visitors from the US consulate.

Sanaullah said 140 foreigners were in the facility, many on drug charges. Press reports have speculated that the authorities worry the US could try to spring Davis in a "Hollywood-style sting". "All measures for his security have been taken," said the ISI official. "He's as safe as can be."

"CIA spy" Davis was giving nuclear bomb material to Al-Qaeda

"CIA spy" Davis was giving nuclear bomb material to Al-Qaeda, says report

Double murder-accused US official Raymond Davis has been found in possession of top-secret CIA documents, which point to him or the feared American Task Force 373 (TF373) operating in the region, providing Al-Qaeda terrorists with "nuclear fissile material" and "biological agents," according to a report.

Russia's Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) is warning that the situation on the sub-continent has turned "grave" as it appears that open warfare is about to break out between Pakistan and the United States, The European Union Times reports.

The SVR warned in its report that the apprehension of 36-year-old Davis, who shot dead two Pakistani men in Lahore last month, had fuelled this crisis.

According to the report, the combat skills exhibited by Davis, along with documentation taken from him after his arrest, prove that he is a member of US' TF373 black operations unit currently operating in the Afghan War Theatre and Pakistan's tribal areas, the paper said.

While the US insists that Davis is one of their diplomats, and the two men he killed were robbers, Pakistan says that the duo were ISI agents sent to follow him after it was discovered that he had been making contact with al Qaeda, after his cell phone was tracked to the Waziristan tribal area bordering Afghanistan, the paper said.

The most ominous point in this SVR report is "Pakistan's ISI stating that top-secret CIA documents found in Davis's possession point to his, and/or TF373, providing to al Qaeda terrorists "nuclear fissile material" and "biological agents", which they claim are to be used against the United States itself in order to ignite an all-out war in order to re-establish the West's hegemony over a Global economy that is warned is just months away from collapse," the paper added. (ANI)