Raymond Davis Case: Court to begin hearing today

[W.11]

sef deleted

 

[VCheng]

That's where its our fault, not the leaders. I will revert to the old adage that "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing". And we did nothing, while these leaders flourished, triumphed.

But my complaint with several Pakistanis on this thread, including you and Mastan, is that why are you so quick to resign to that as inevitability. I mean don't you see that, this attitude, is demoralizing, demotivating and eventually de-Pakistanizing.

Let me tell you, Pakistan doesn't suck that bad that it can't have hopeful patriots. I'm pretty sure the jungles of Congo, the desolate lands of Somalia and Ethiopia, and several other destitute lands all have patriots still hoping for a change in Africa. Why can't we? So this important difference, is not etched in stone, its just another hurdle we need to demolish.

I feel like a cliche' machine but I have to point out this saying I read in a Stephen R. Covey book "Be solution oriented, and you will make solutions, be Problem oriented and you will make problems"

What a thought-provoking post, and one that should not only be be thanked, but answered point by point:

That's where its our fault, not the leaders. I will revert to the old adage that "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing". And we did nothing, while these leaders flourished, triumphed.

I agree, but my problem is that with the history of more than half century's worth of inaction, where are the reasons for that to change? Merely RD's capture is not enough clearly.

But my complaint with several Pakistanis on this thread, including you and Mastan, is that why are you so quick to resign to that as inevitability. I mean don't you see that, this attitude, is demoralizing, demotivating and eventually de-Pakistanizing.

The flaw with that logic is the assumption that I am quick to resign to the inevitability. My reasoning did not come about due to the RD incident, it was formed slowly and critically, watching the last 40 years of neglect, malice, decay and decline, while the rest of the world passed us by on so many fronts. The confused head-in-the-sand of the Pakistani government is merely Display #1.

(And I do not want to brag about my history, but suffice to say, you will not find it lacking in anything where Pakistan is concerned.)

The first step to rectifying any fault is to acknowledge it's existence, just the the first step on the path to knowledge is admitting ignorance. Thus, my posts are NOT intended to demoralize or belittle anything or anyone, least of all Pakistan and its people, both of which I dearly love. What motivates me is the delusional and unrealistic thinking that is displayed so easily, wrapped up in religious or moral or patriotic (or a combination of these three) rhetoric, and the desire to counter that with logic and reasoning, hopefully without being called names.

Let me tell you, Pakistan doesn't suck that bad that it can't have hopeful patriots. I'm pretty sure the jungles of Congo, the desolate lands of Somalia and Ethiopia, and several other destitute lands all have patriots still hoping for a change in Africa. Why can't we? So this important difference, is not etched in stone, its just another hurdle we need to demolish.

What a great point. I am here because of the fact that I know that all is NOT hopeless in Pakistan, and I want to contribute positively. However, this also means that merely depending on "hope" is not enough. I want to see a discussion of the practical steps to implement hope and thus produce positive changes, but that is so far sorely lacking. I agree with you that the present situation is a hurdle to abolish, and I am hopeful it can be, but HOW? Let us also discuss simple and effective concrete steps that would provide the kernel around which bigger changes can grow.

Case in point, you mentioned one person going back with 800,000 rupess to help flood vicitms. Not to boast, but I particpated in sending and utilizing several times that amount and even that was merely a drop in the bucket. The needs of 20 million people for recovering from the recent floods are staggering indeed. Your comment about arranging for wind and solar power was another one to reduce oil import dependence. The numbers simply do not work out.

Again, I am sorry if this demoralises you, or anyone else here, but I do want to present hard realities that must be dealt with if any success is to be achieved. My heart (and mind) are in the right place, please trust me on that.

I feel like a cliche' machine but I have to point out this saying I read in a Stephen R. Covey book "Be solution oriented, and you will make solutions, be Problem oriented and you will make problems"

I love the quote, but for all the cliches, I do enjoying discussing all sorts of matters with you (and a few others) here on PDF, and I do not intend to stop unless something drastic happens.

 

[Spring Onion]

CIA man in Pakistan may not have immunity

A former State Department lawyer says real questions remain about the legal status of Raymond Davis



By Justin Elliott



An expert who previously worked in a key State Department diplomatic affairs position is questioning the Obama administration's claim that Raymond Davis, the American currently imprisoned in Pakistan after killing two men, has diplomatic immunity.



A specialist in diplomatic law, Ron Mlotek served for 25 years as legal counsel at the State Department Office of Foreign Missions, which regulates foreign missions in the United States. In an interview with Salon, Mlotek said there remain crucial unanswered questions in the case, and that the question of Davis' immunity is not nearly as clear-cut as the administration has argued.



"On the basis of what has been publicly reported, it appears to me that the State Department is relying on legal smoke and mirrors," says Mlotek, who retired two years ago. In his former position, Mlotek dealt with many cases of alleged crimes by foreign representatives in the United States.



Davis was recently revealed to be a former Blackwater contractor working for the CIA in Pakistan, though it turns out those are not the most relevant facts when it comes to determining whether he has immunity.



Davis shot and killed two men in disputed circumstances while driving in the eastern city of Lahore last month; the U.S. maintains he acted in self-defense. An American vehicle that was dispatched from the "safe house" where Davis was living in Lahore then struck and killed a Pakistani bystander while rushing to the scene to pick up Davis. Subsequently, the wife of one of the slain men committed suicide. The case has sparked large protests in Pakistan.



Davis was arrested after the incident and has been held in Lahore while a court considers his claim of immunity. The Obama administration has argued that Davis' detainment is not permitted because he has full diplomatic immunity -- a position that, if he does enjoy such immunity, would be correct, according to Mlotek.



So the key questions are: How does one get full diplomatic immunity, and does Davis have it?



There are two relevant international treaties to consider: the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (1963) and the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961).



When a diplomatic officer (someone who works at the embassy) or a consular officer (someone who works at a consulate) is dispatched to a foreign country, the United States informs the so-called "receiving state" that the officer is arriving and describes his or her job at the embassy or consulate. The mode of official communication is known as a "diplomatic note." After getting the notification, the receiving state -- in this case Pakistan -- typically recognizes the person as a diplomatic officer or a consular officer and issues some kind of diplomatic ID card or notice of recognition.



Diplomatic officers get full immunity, while consular officers get only limited "official acts immunity." This difference is crucial in Davis' case. That's because the administration has changed its story about Davis' status. In late January, the administration described Davis as "a staff member of the U.S. Consulate General in Lahore." Later on, they insisted that Pakistan had been officially informed in early 2010 that Davis was "a member of the administrative and technical staff" at the embassy.



Diplomatic officers who work at the embassy get absolute immunity, meaning, according to Mlotek, that they "could in theory pull out a gun and shoot down a family in cold blood and walk away and the foreign government could not lay a finger on them." But consular officers have a lesser class of immunity that covers only actions that are part of their official duties.



"Davis' official duties almost certainly would not have involved using an unregistered pistol against Pakistani civilians," says Mlotek.



But, in a background briefing this week, an unnamed administration official seemed to claim that the U.S.informed Pakistan that Davis worked for the embassy in Islamabad and therefore that he has full immunity. The specifics of what the U.S. told Pakistan in 2010 are not clear. I've asked the State Department for more information on this and will update this post if I hear back.



Assuming what the administration is now claiming is true, there is a second set of potential flaws in the claim of full immunity, according to Mlotek. That is, if the U.S. informed Pakistan in 2010 that Davis was working at the Islamabad embassy, why was he actually working in Lahore? Mlotek summarizes the potential problem:



"Suppose we not only lie about the fact that he's a spy, but we lie about the fact that he has anything to do with the embassy in Islamabad. And then, to top it all off, not only is he not in Islamabad, he's in Lahore. He's not even working in the premises of the consulate. He's working in a secret facility that we have not announced. The Vienna Convention specifically obligates the U.S. to tell Pakistan about where their premises are. And not only that, he's carrying a weapon -- we didn't tell the Pakistanis that," Mlotek says. "At what point do you say the diplomatic note was not valid?"



Mlotek also says a crucial concern when he worked at the Office of Foreign Missions was the "reciprocity angle."



"What if the other guys did the same thing here? Would the U.S. allow the Pakistani agent to go free?"



UPDATE: State Department spokeswoman Nicole Thompson tells me that the January 2010 diplomatic note regarding Davis will not be made publicly available. "We don't release diplomatic communications," she said.

__________________________

Justin Elliott is a Salon reporter. Reach him by email at jelliott@salon.com

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/02/23/

 

[VCheng]

^^^ JanaJi: The GoP has engaged international legal counsel for expert advice, has it not?

 

[@nline]

This man should face the justice in Pakistan as well as Afia facing in America.

 

[Awesome]

^^^ JanaJi: The GoP has engaged international legal counsel for expert advice, has it not?

I wonder if it really needs advice when plenty is available at home, or they need someone to pin the burden of the decision on.

 

[Awesome]

Discussion continued here: http://www.defence.pk/forums/curren...atives-fast-exiting-pakistan.html#post1524857