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

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

'Davis' is the missing link of US support for 'TTP' terror in Pakistan

Undoubtedly this is the biggest scandal in US Foreign relations since the US U-2 was shot down by the Soviets in the sixties. Then, as now, both sides played out the drama in an iterative manner--neither side letting the other know how much they know.

There are clear indications that there is much more to the "Raymond Davis" affair than the Pakistanis are letting on. THis isn't about murder and diplomatic immunity. This is much bigger. Something is very wrong with this picture, and Islamabad is tight lipped because it now has concrete evidence that Mr "Raymond Davis" is linked with the Tehrik e Taliban e Pakistan (TTP) and some of the terror activities that have been happening in Pakistan. The Pakistanis are not stupid. Americans stick out like sore thumbs in Pakistan. When they go running around in their black SUVs laced with Satellite equipment they are tracked, traced and followed. In a cat and mouse game, the contractors can sometimes shake their "tails". On other occasions they cannot. In fact the ISI gives them enough rope to hang themselves with. In this case, it seems Mr. Davis fell into a trap and his situation is now fully compromised. In panic Mr. "Davis" used the ‘Nuclear’ option and killed the two Pakistanis who were trailing him--knowing full well that killing Pakistani spies or those who knew his identity would blow up in his face. He doesn't have to say much--the equipment he carried tells a long and bloody story. All this is irrefutable evidence in a Pakistani court of law. The Pakistanis have already released the pictures of the equipment and the evidence that they have gathered. Of course they are still holding on to the juiciest details.

The US has postponed the Afghan-Pakistan-US Trilateral meeting, dropped hints about postponing the date of Mr. Zardari's visit to the US, and floated all sorts of other threats. Normally Islamabad would have been cognizant of the problems of spoiling its relationship with the sole Superpower. However the smirking Pakistanis are so confident in the validity of their cause, that they are letting the US escalate the issue.

Pakistan has ignored some of the US pressure and has not buckled under intense US pressure. Both General Kayani and Former Foreign Minister Mahmood Qureshi were not very impressed by US posturing. In fact right after their threatening phone calls and messages Islamabad formally charged Davis with pre-meditated murder in the Lahore High Court. The Court promptly remanded Mr. "Davis" to prison for another 14 days of interrogation. There were stories that if Mr. "Davis" does not cooperate, the interrogation would have been upgraded to level 3 (a euphemism for torture). There are reports that despite admonitions from the US Embassy, Mr. Davis is singing like a bird, and has already given enough information to the Pakistanis to get him convicted in any court of law.

The Former Foreign Minister Qureshi publicly confirmed that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pressured him to "publicly confirm diplomatic immunity of Davis. However, I refused to do so because it was against the factual position in the case." FM Qureshi's confirmation that Mr "Davis" is not a diplomat was repeatedly discussed on all 80 TV channels with copies of his passports and visas prominently displayed for the audience. Mr.Quresh said that "The kind of blanket immunity Washington is pressing for Davis is not endorsed by the official record of the Foreign Ministry," adding that Washington even "threatened that Hillary Clinton would not meet me at the Munich conference on February 6 if the request was not granted."

The situation is so polarized that even traditional US allies in Pakistan have condemned the intrusive murders. Mr. Pervez Hoodbhoy who almost never criticizes the US has condemned the "Davis" affair. The PMLN has of course threatened the PPP with a vote of no-confidence.

It is clear that Mr. "Davis" shot the Pakistani operatives knowing full well who they were. The Pakistani authorities have informed the the media that they are very well aware that Mr. Davis was in touch with the "Pakistani Taliban" (TTP). There is conjecture that Mr. "Davis" walked into a trap laid out by the ISI. In fact his contacts were actually ISI agents. All that he said and did is in the hands of the Pakistanis. Mr. "Davis" thought that by shooting the two operatives, he would eliminate the evidence against him. In fact, it made matters worse. Other operatives who were in the vicinity had already taken the necessary precautions. The ISI has leaked information to the media that Mr. "Davis" had crossed a "red line".
 

Clearly, the Americans have panicked because they know that the Pakistani side knows much more than it is prepared to admit in public. This is typical behavior when spies are caught with their thumbs up their noses. There are clear indications that Mr. "Davis" has broken down after sustained interrogation in police custody, and has spilled his guts--making the Pakistanis aware of explosive stuff. Its not that this stuff that has surprised the Pakistanis. When you have 3000 of these guys running around the country--something gives. The ISI is one of the world's most powerful spy organizations in the world. It has deep roots in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Nothing that crawls or walks in Pakistan is hidden from the ISI and other agencies. On top of this there is a million man Pakistani army. 180 million Pakistanis are also watching the Americans and reporting on them. The panicked Americans have continually given highly contradictory versions about Mr. "Davis's" identity and the nature of his assignment in Pakistan.

It is very clear that Mr. "Davis's" discovery and detention has sent alarm bells ringing all the way to President Obama's White House. In a way the Pakistanis are amused. They know they have the Americans where they want them--right up against the wall. The Americans are fully aware that the "Davis" case is shaking the very foundations of the transactional relationship with Pakistan. While the CIA, the State Department and the White House think that this is a new discovery--the Pakistanis point to a long trail of evidence that directly points to the US consultants and their hirelings in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The ISI and the Army believe that at the right time, the details of what the Pakistanis know will be revealed to President Obama and the world.

Pakistan and Pakistanis have known for a long time who is behind the TTP (Tehrik e Taliban e Pakistani). Its not that hard to guess. What surprised the Pakistanis was their ability to inflict bloody attacks on the Pakistani military in order to destabilize Pakistani. Mr. Davis is not an isolated incident--there is a history behind much of what is happening in Pakistan--most of which can be correlated to the rise of the US "consultants" and "contractors" in Pakistan. It is pedagogical to note that last year when the ISI put in requests for deep security checks on those coming into Pakistan--the US threw a fit and forced about 500 of these "Davis types" through without any background checks. Is is noted that the ISI became very suspicious of the insistence of the US in getting these guys into Pakistan at short notice. These guys got very special attention--and that has paid off in the arrest and detention of Mr. Davis. This points to the fact that this incident was not just an accident--it was an incident waiting to happen. The ISI was ready to pounce on the situation once it happened.

Pakistan has been very suspicious of these "contractors" especially when Pakistani state institutions were attacked. The attacks on the the Army HQ, and the ISI sent alarm bells among the rank and file of the Pakistani government. The vibrant Pakistani press has also been on the trail and has repeatedly pointed out the facts about the former Afghan intelligence chief Amrullah Saleh (who was eventually fired by Mr. Karzai). However the US security establishment was in cahoots with him.

The Pakistani military and its highly efficient intelligence set-up had concluded a very long time ago that the TTP was being aided by the very sort of free-wheeling "contractors" that Mr. Davis represents. It was just a matter of time when things came to a boil. It is amazing that the Americans are surprised they have finally been caught red-handed. This has happened in the past, but during the reign of President Musharraf, the Americans got away with it and escaped. This time Mr. "Davis" was caught with his hands in the cookie jar. Not too long ago US personnel were stopped at a check post and the entire drama of their refusal to lower their windows or come out of the vehicle was shown on TV—live.

Over 100,000 American troops in Afghanistan facing the new Taliban "Spring Offensive" are totally dependent on supplies running through Pakistan. The last time Pakistan shut off the spigot, the Americans ran out of toilet paper and had to cut down on food rations. It must have been hard eating food with dirty hands! If the tiff between the US and Pakistan is not resolved the US may face the consequences in Afghanistan. Failure in the Hindu Kush will certainly impact the presidential elections in 2012.

Pak FM Qureshi Denied Hillary of Davis' Diplomatic Immunity

Sunday, 13 February 2011 

 

Ex Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi has said he denied US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to confirm that Raymond Davis enjoyed diplomatic immunity. He said his party is down on knees asking him to rejoin federal cabinet.

Shah Mahmood Qureshi was on his farewell visit to the Foreign Ministry. Talking to the officials in the Foreign Office, Qureshi said US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton telephoned him and pressurized to confirm the diplomatic immunity of the US citizen who brutally killed two Pakistani nationals in Lahore, Raymond Davis, but he denied.

 

Qureshi also said that later Cameron Munter telephoned him from Washington and said if Raymond’s diplomatic immunity is not confirmed then he (Qureshi) will not be going to meet Hillary in Munich.

 

Former minister said that his party is down on knees asking him to rejoin federal cabinet.

ISLAMABAD: Former Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi has ruled out providing the kind of immunity to Raymond Davis which US called for, adding that the suspect is not a diplomat in Pakistan, Geo News reported. Talking to Jang Group’s senior journalist, Ansar Abbasi, Qureshi said that Raymond Davis was not a US diplomat according to Pakistan’s official record as Foreign Ministry has searched out complete documents, dismissing likelihood of immunity for suspect, which US demanded from Pakistan.

 

Former foreign minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi said in categorical terms that as per the official record and advice given to him by experts in the Foreign Office, the American double murderer Raymond Davis is not a diplomat and cannot be given blanket diplomatic immunity.

 

The kind of blanket immunity Washington is pressing for Davis, is not endorsed by the official record of the Foreign Ministry,” Qureshi said in a brief chat with The News. Qureshi was reluctant to talk in detail on the issue, but when requested to offer his brief comment, he said: “On the basis of the official record and the advice given to me by the technocrats and experts of the Foreign Office, I could not certify him (Raymond Davis) as a diplomat”. Qureshi was approached after the Foreign Ministry sources said he spoke on the issue of Davis during his farewell speech in the FO. Separately, sources in the Foreign Office revealed to The News that the Foreign Ministry on the basis of its record had already concluded that Raymond Davis was neither a diplomat nor enjoying blanket diplomatic immunity, but it was Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, who had strictly asked the Foreign Ministry not to utter a word on the issue.

 

Even in an inter-ministerial meeting held at the Foreign Office, it was agreed that Davis could not be handed over to America,” the source said, disclosing that Davis was never registered in the Foreign Office record even as a non-diplomatic staff as certain queries sent to the US Embassy remained unanswered. The sources said on January 25, 2011, the US Embassy sent a list of its outstanding cases regarding the status of its officials and diplomats for settlement and to issue them the diplomatic identity card, but it did not include the name of Raymond Davis. On 28th of January, a day after Raymond Davis killed two Pakistanis in broad daylight in Lahore, the US Embassy again sent the list of outstanding cases to the Foreign Ministry, but this time the list included the name of Raymond Davis. This fact, the sources said, simply belies the Washington’s stance on blanket immunity for Davis.

 

According to the Vienna Convention, a diplomat or staff sought by the sending state to be provided diplomatic immunity is required to be notified as such by the Foreign Ministry of the receiving state. It was not done in case of Davis.

 

Foreign Office sources fear that with the departure of respected Qureshi from the Foreign Ministry, an effort may be made to fudge the official record to the pleasure of Washington. It is worth mentioning here that Shah Mehmood Qureshi sacrificed his important cabinet slot for standing firm on the issue of Davis and for refusing to succumb to the kind of pressure that was exerted on him to release and hand over Davis to the Americans. This proud son of Pakistan asked us to go by the law and as per the record of the Foreign Ministry,” a senior Foreign Ministry source said, apprehending the things might not remain the same as they had been under Shah Mehmood Qureshi. The ministry sources said Qureshi on Saturday paid a farewell visit to the Foreign Ministry where he was shown utmost respect by all and sundry. He also spoke to the ministry officials and, according to sources, there too he touched upon the Davis issue and said his position on Davis’s case is the finding of the Foreign Ministry.

 

The sources said although the Foreign Ministry was asked to keep a complete mum on the subject, it was Interior Minister Rehman Malik, who instead, was mandated to speak on the issue. The outgoing foreign minister, the sources said, has been telling the Americans that Davis could not be released or handed over to the Americans as the matter is now with the courts.

 

A Foreign Ministry official dealing with the American desk, confided to this correspondent that they were asked by the outgoing minister to place all the record pertaining to Davis with the courts and then leave it for the courts to decide if he could be given the kind of immunity that Washington is desperately seeking for him. After the arrest of Davis, the Foreign Ministry in particular and the government of Pakistan and Punjab in general faced all sorts of pressures from the United States for the immediate release of the American killer. However, it was the independent judiciary of the country that gave utmost strength to the rulers, who are telling the Americans to wait for a court decision and that nothing could be settled outside the courtroom.

 

Recently, the US congressmen, who met the authorities here, including the president, indicated of possible aid cut for Pakistan if Raymond Davis is not handed over to the Americans. On this issue, a Foreign Ministry source said the bullying tactics of the Americans negate their public posturing for long-term strategic relationship.

Davis may also face espionage charge

By Qaiser Butt

Published: February 9, 2011

Pakistani police escort arrested US national Raymond Davis (C) to a court in Lahore. PHOTO: AFP/FILE

ISLAMABAD: In an interesting twist to the  Lahore double murder involving a US ‘diplomatic official’, prosecutors have recommended that an espionage case be also registered against him, sources said on Tuesday.

Raymond Davis is already facing charges for killing two Pakistani motorcyclists in a busy marketplace of Lahore on January 27.

“Keeping in view the nature of the case it is strongly recommended that a case of espionage be registered against Davis,” the prosecution branch of the Punjab police has written in an official letter to the investigation branch.

“During the course of investigation, police retrieved photographs of some sensitive areas and defence installations from Davis’ camera,” a source told The Express Tribune requesting anonymity. “Photos of the strategic Balahisar Fort, the headquarters of the paramilitary Frontier Corps in Peshawar and of Pakistan Army’s bunkers on the Eastern border with India were found in the camera,” the source added.

The police had recovered a digital camera, a Glock pistol and a phone tracker along with a charger from Davis after his arrest. The Punjab government considers Davis a security risk after the recovery of the photos of sensitive installations, said the source.

The Obama administration has been pressuring Pakistan to release Davis who, according to it, “is a member of the administrative and technical staff of the mission” and therefore enjoys diplomatic immunity under the Vienna Convention.

“But Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif has told American diplomats that the matter is sub judice and only the Lahore High Court (LHC) would decide whether or not Davis was entitled to diplomatic immunity,” an official source told The Express Tribune.

Sharif made the statement at a recent meeting with the US diplomats who sought Davis’ immediate release.

Citing a letter written by Interior Minister Rehman Malik to the Punjab government, the diplomats said that Davis had diplomatic immunity.

Sharif, however, denied his government had received any letter from the interior minister, according to the sources. Sharif advised the diplomats to wait for the LHC ruling on the diplomatic status of Davis.

A security official told The Express Tribune that Davis’ name did not figure on a list of US diplomats presented by the American embassy to the ministry of foreign affairs on Jan 25. But interestingly, his name figured prominently on another list submitted by the embassy to the ministry on Jan 28.

Diplomatic source told The Express Tribune that the foreign ministry’s viewpoint would be presented before the LHC whenever asked by the court.

Published in The Express Tribune, February 9^th, 2011.

A legal view of immunity to Raymond Davis

By Mirza Shahzad Akbar
Friday, February 04, 2011
 
ISLAMABAD: Does Raymond Davis have diplomatic immunity? A simple answer is no, because he is not a diplomat. Diplomatic immunity in layman’s terms is a form of legal immunity held between governments through treaties, which guarantee that diplomats are given safe passage and considered immune from civil suits or criminal prosecution.

The governing instrument of International Law for diplomatic immunity is called Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961, and a lot has been said about this already in press and on TV. However no one has paid attention to a similar treaty of just two years later, called Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963 which was adopted by Pakistan through Diplomatic and Consular Privileges Act 1972.

This Convention governs immunities and privileges accorded to Consulate members and its staff. The word “consular post” is defined in Article 1 of 1963 Convention as any consulate general, consulate, vice consulate or consular agency, and consular officer is defined as any person, including the head of a consular post, entrusted in that capacity with the exercise of consular functions.

After understanding these two definitions given in Vienna Convention of 1963, one needs to read Article 41 (1) which says: “Consular officers shall not be liable to arrest or detention pending trial, except in the case of a grave crime and pursuant to a decision by the competent judicial authority”.

Now having read the law, there should be no doubt in anyone’s mind that if a member of US Consulate in Lahore kills someone, he is answerable to a court of law in that jurisdiction, as there is no other crime more heinous or more grave than murder. The next important fact to establish here would be: who is Raymond Davis? This has to be looked further into from two angles: one concerning his legal status and second regarding his factual status. For determining his legal status, the US Embassy Islamabad’s press release of January 28, 2011 is quite helpful which says:

‘A staff member of the US Consulate General in Lahore was involved in an incident yesterday that regrettably resulted in the loss of life. The US Embassy is working with Pakistani authorities to determine the facts and work toward a resolution’.

This statement can be read on US Embassy’s website at http://islamabad.usembassy.gov/pr-11012801.html.

In light of this we can say that Raymond Davis who was a US Consulate Lahore employee shot two citizens of Pakistan, and his accomplices (still at large) ran over another passerby and as he is not a diplomat as per Vienna Convention of 1961 but a consular officer as per Vienna Convention of 1963. Therefore he has no diplomatic or consular immunity as the crime concerned is of grave nature, and his fate is to be determined by the court of competent jurisdiction, which in this case is District and Sessions Court in Lahore.

Now the second angle about Raymond Davis is the factual aspect as to who is Raymond Davis? According to American press, Davis runs a Florida based security company named M/s Hyperion Protective Consultants. Similarly, according to American analysts and security experts this Florida based company sounds like a typical CIA operative. According to Jeff Stein’s report in Washington Post, and the security expert Burton, Davis “had outstanding situational awareness to recognize the attack unfolding and shoot the other men. It shows a high degree of firearms discipline and training.”

And finally the post mortem report of victims establishes the professional style of execution. Another interesting fact is that it took US Embassy days to determine the exact status of Raymond Davis. And to further insult our intelligence the US Embassy press release on the issue on January 29 declares him employee of US Embassy Islamabad (this not so innocent assertion is to claim diplomatic immunity under 1961 Convention). And the story of self-defence does not fit in quite well in the presence of several bullet shots at the back of motor-cyclists. In any event, for a successful plea of self-defence Davis would have to establish grave and immediate danger to his life and the use of reasonable force to avert such danger.

In the end, the uproar of Pakistanis in the aftermath of this incident and the prevailing anger among masses should not be construed as anti-American. Pakistanis do not hate America, for many it is the hope of success and better life. The idea of liberty and freedom flows from US in modern history. But majority of Pakistanis do hate American state’s hegemony, self-righteousness and their policies in the region. American State was much hated in the Arab world for their policies towards Palestine and Israel and now we see uprising in Egypt and Jordan against their dictators who had been toeing American line for too long. This growing hatred in Pakistan for America is rather new for American post 9/11 policies. Let’s hope it does not lead Pakistan to utter chaos.

The writer is a practising lawyer in Islamabad. email: mirzashahzadakbar@gmail.com