Raymond Davis Case: Developing Story

[GUNNER]

Davis and our blundering Foriegn Office

By Zafar Hilaly


The Foreign Office’s (FO) pathetic attempts to find a policy are, once again, on display in the case of Raymond Davis. Watching it perform is like watching a third-rate review in some backstreet theatre where performers appear in various guises and dance, with despairing vigour, the same old jig (of evading facts and keeping quiet when they need to speak up).

It beggars the imagination that the FO does not know whether a member of a foreign mission is a diplomat or not. Actually it knows, but the man who heads the show will sing you any song that you want him to sing. His short-sighted policy — not to confront reality for the sake of cheap popularity — is the very nature of this government. Time and again we have seen how it bends to ‘lick its own spit’ because reality is unavoidable, which is what will eventually happen in this case.

The fact of the matter is that Raymond Davis is, by the reckoning of most neutral observers, a ‘diplomat’ for the purposes of Article 38 of the Vienna Convention and hence entitled to diplomatic immunity. No court needs to decide that, only the Foreign Office does, because his status is a question, not of law, but of fact, and by refusing to do so the FO has landed the government in a far greater mess than it would have been in had it alluded to international law and said that, given the circumstances, it was helpless. Our politicos, too, would have had to lump it. Because what is likely to happen is that either the US shuts shop and stops dealing with Pakistan or, alternatively, informs Pakistan that the immunity of its diplomats in the US will be withdrawn. Of course, for good measure, it can stop issuing visas for the 1,800 or so diplomatic and official Pakistani passport holders who travel to the US annually.

There are many other courses of action open to the US, and for that matter to Pakistan, to demonstrate their respective displeasure, but what is clear is that the former would have to react in some manner or lose face to an extent that would be insufferable and, frankly, counterproductive. Besides, Congress would step in somewhere down the line to further muddy the waters if Washington does not react strongly.

Of course, it is lamentable that nations lie and dissemble, and want gunmen and sleuths to be treated on par with diplomats in order to enable them to claim immunity from prosecution. But then, welcome to the real world. Lest we think we are any better, we have several Raymond Davis types in our missions abroad, trying to collect the same kind of information that he was. And, now and then, they too get caught and end up being repatriated, albeit without anyone being any the wiser.

The court would do us all a favour by insisting that the Foreign Office determine whether Raymond Davis has immunity, rather than to let the government off the hook by coming to the same decision itself after proceedings, during which our relations with the US will be greatly strained. Of course, there is no reason why we should not take on the US, but surely when international law is on our side, not merely to court cheap popularity. Meanwhile, all should focus on getting maximum compensation for the families of those killed by Davis.

Published in The Express Tribune, February 4th, 2011.


Davis and our blundering Foriegn Office – The Express Tribune

 

[American Eagle]

Gunner in Post # 1369 says it all!

Pakistanis logic on the street in some quarters is without logic, as they ignore the murder of the Paksitani Governor of Punjab Province...as well as the failed robbery attempt by two armed thugs whose crime history per Lahore Police was existant in several, 3 or 4, previous robberies they were sought for.

Pakistan's seeming official ambivalence is seen by the world for what it is, trying to cover up a botched robbery attempt on an American diplomt who has diplomatic immunity to try to create fake, flatly false "martyrs" to whip up poorest levels of understanding among the most abused Paksitanis to mislead them into another blind alley of hate mongering...all to distract them from the awful conditions they are historically forced to live in.

Condole the family of the shot in self defense robbers but move on with the truth and exercise Diplomat Immunity for Mr. Davis so this innocent, put upon diplomat can go home to the US and never see Pakistan again.

Pakistan has no current national unity, and way back in the 1960s when I served with the old US Embassy in Karachi lacked same then, too. National unity is not built around false, untrue gamesmanship, but around a sincere government reform effort that empowers the least among you to have at least the "hope" of a better life, if not for themselves as greying adults, at least for their children and future grandchildren.

 

[Bratva]

A Special Treat For Mr.American Eagle

Police find self-defence plea not convincing

ISLAMABAD: Police investigators into the double murder case of American killer Raymond Davis have not found the murderer’s claim of self-defence convincing.

Instead, the investigators see his act as an excessive and disproportionate use of force, which is not covered in the definition of self-defence as per the law of the land.

Without having been fired at or threatened to death, the police sources said, Davis killed the two young men by excessive and disproportionate use of force.

Sources told The News that police investigations are still continuing and a lot of evidence is to be recorded, including from the accused. Davis has yet to justify as to why he fired nine bullets on the two young men, that too mostly on their back.

The murderer, who spoke on the very first day but later sealed his lips following his meeting with US officials, had initially claimed that he had acted in self-defence after the two young men were allegedly trying to rob him.

The police, who have been facing non-cooperation on the part of the killer, now expect to get something really meaningful out of Davis as the court on Thursday extended his police remand for another eight days. After receiving consular access, Davis became stubborn but has now started losing his confidence.

Besides his motive to kill the two Pakistanis, a lot is to be asked from the killer, seen as a US spy. Police are anxious to get answers to questions like who did he call for help? Why did he shoot at two men without having being fired at? Why did he shoot to death the young men in their back? Who was in the back-up vehicle that killed another young man? What was he doing there? Why was he carrying illicit arms, GPS (global positioning system), four magazines, more than 70 bullets, pictures of sensitive installations? What is his assignment in Pakistan? What is his real identity? etc.

Regarding the self-defence plea of the murderer, a prominent Barrister Farogh Naseem has said that if the American had killed two persons in self-defence, then it is for the court to decide that whether the act was proportionate to the threat or not. Naseem mentioned that the law does not accept that if a person punches someone and receives a bullet in return. Self-defence has to be proportionate.

The detailed post mortem reports of the two deceased men reveal that they received nine bullets altogether out of which one bullet struck one of the two from the front. The reports said that Fahim Shamshad, whose post mortem was conducted after 22 hours and 30 minutes of his death, received the first bullet hitting his head on the right side in the back, second at his back, third on left side of his waist while the fourth bullet hit his left wrist and passed after touching his left leg.


According to the post mortem of Faizan Haider, he succumbed to injuries in hospital after receiving five wound marks on his body. He received the first bullet from the front at left side of his chest, the second passed through his left hip, the third at left side waist from the back while two bullets passed after touching his left leg.

According to police investigators, in self-defence a person merely disables the attacker but in case of Davis, he appeared ruthless and apparently killed the deceased without any sign of having been assaulted by the victims.

Under the PPC, the right of self-defence can be used to the extent of killing the assailant if an assault may reasonably cause the apprehension that death will otherwise be the consequence of such assault or that such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such assault, etc.

According to the PPC, if the offence (of killing someone in self-defence) be not of any of the descriptions enumerated in the PPC, the right of private defence of the body does not extend to the voluntary causing of death to the assailant.

The right of private defence of the body commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or threat to commit the offence though the offence may not have been committed; and it continues as long as such apprehension of danger to the body continues, the PPC explains.

Police find self-defence plea not convincing

 

[Patriot]

Whether he is guilty or not - If he has diplomatic immunity then we will have to release him - It's sad but we have to follow International Rules otherwise our diplomats will receive similar treatment.

 

[Rafael]

Gunner in Post # 1369 says it all!

Pakistanis logic on the street in some quarters is without logic, as they ignore the murder of the Paksitani Governor of Punjab Province...as well as the failed robbery attempt by two armed thugs whose crime history per Lahore Police was existant in several, 3 or 4, previous robberies they were sought for.

Pakistan's seeming official ambivalence is seen by the world for what it is, trying to cover up a botched robbery attempt on an American diplomt who has diplomatic immunity to try to create fake, flatly false "martyrs" to whip up poorest levels of understanding among the most abused Paksitanis to mislead them into another blind alley of hate mongering...all to distract them from the awful conditions they are historically forced to live in.

Condole the family of the shot in self defense robbers but move on with the truth and exercise Diplomat Immunity for Mr. Davis so this innocent, put upon diplomat can go home to the US and never see Pakistan again.

Pakistan has no current national unity, and way back in the 1960s when I served with the old US Embassy in Karachi lacked same then, too. National unity is not built around false, untrue gamesmanship, but around a sincere government reform effort that empowers the least among you to have at least the "hope" of a better life, if not for themselves as greying adults, at least for their children and future grandchildren.

You don't trust the legal proceedings, You don't believe in investigation by the local police officers, You don't like Pakistan's Foriegn office for their lack of support to the criminal American, You hat Pakistani public for asking their govt. for fair trial of Mr. Davis, But you come here and rant like anything.

Get over it, your fellow American will not be released. He will rott for all his life in the dark jail room here!

 

[American Eagle]

I am on record ever since 911 as a long term friend of Pakistan. Period.

I don't like trumped up charges when the issue is proven crooks using deadly weapons in an attempted stick up of a US diplomat.

Blasphemy advocates excuse the murder of the Governor of Punjab Province. I do not so agree and he was truely murdered in cold blood.

The two bandits were shot in self defense by a diplomat with diplomatic immunity.

Trying to make heroes out of common, with a record of 4 or more robberies, crooks is on it's face self explaining as to why the world at large does not share your viewpoint, which ignores that a diplomatically immune US diplomat faced attempted armed robbery and defended himself.

Your "allegations" of police opinions are sheer fabrication and propaganda which self satisfies your views one would suppose.

I will continue to pray for the future peace of Pakistan, where a stronger degree of religious freedom, an end to terrorism and a better day for ALL not just some Pakistanis must and one day will exist.

Two robbers, armed with unlicensed guns, each had a pistol, holding four cell phones, two each, one of the two each cell phones having just been stolen off of two Pakstiani gentlemen who filed a police report against these same two robbers, is a point blank fact of crooks trying to execute armed robbery.

The Pakistani Foreign Office, not a subcourt, is the legal point of order to obey Diplomatic Immunity and release Mr. Davis into US custody so that he can be removed permanently from Pakistan.

 

[Bratva]

You don't trust the legal proceedings, You don't believe in investigation by the local police officers, You don't like Pakistan's Foriegn office for their lack of support to the criminal American, You hat Pakistani public for asking their govt. for fair trial of Mr. Davis, But you come here and rant like anything.

Get over it, your fellow American will not be released. He will rott for all his life in the dark jail room here!

His rants become so over the board that He claims Davis to be innocent, constantly declaring two persons robbers, even Police had not declared them Robbers officially, even after two persons claimed them the robbers and launched a FIR against them but Police is still investigating if they were robbers or not and, American Eagle constantly nagging like a old lady that he is innocent or more precisely acting like a Judge!

 

[Bratva]

I am on record ever since 911 as a long term friend of Pakistan. Period.

I don't like trumped up charges when the issue is proven crooks using deadly weapons in an attempted stick up of a US diplomat.

Blasphemy advocates excuse the murder of the Governor of Punjab Province. I do not so agree and he was truely murdered in cold blood.

The two bandits were shot in self defense by a diplomat with diplomatic immunity.

Trying to make heroes out of common, with a record of 4 or more robberies, crooks is on it's face self explaining as to why the world at large does not share your viewpoint, which ignores that a diplomatically immune US diplomat faced attempted armed robbery and defended himself.

Your "allegations" of police opinions are sheer fabrication and propaganda which self satisfies your views one would suppose.

I will continue to pray for the future peace of Pakistan, where a stronger degree of religious freedom, an end to terrorism and a better day for ALL not just some Pakistanis must and one day will exist.

Two robbers, armed with unlicensed guns, each had a pistol, holding four cell phones, two each, one of the two each cell phones having just been stolen off of two Pakstiani gentlemen who filed a police report against these same two robbers, is a point blank fact of crooks trying to execute armed robbery.

The Pakistani Foreign Office, not a subcourt, is the legal point of order to obey Diplomatic Immunity and release Mr. Davis into US custody so that he can be removed permanently from Pakistan.

Were you with Davis at that time? that you are constantly saying he acted in self defense? Your "allegations" of Self-Defense are sheer fabrication and propaganda which self satisfies your views one would suppose.

 

[American Eagle]

Ascertaining Raymond Davis?s identity – The Express Tribune

Click on the above subject line for the full article for your own reading satisfaction.

In this a well written legal article by a Lahore attorney whose law degree was earned in the US you will find the folkowing:

By way of background, the foundation for this principle was laid down in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961, which is considered the most important international agreement on diplomatic immunity. The relevant part of Article 31 of this Convention sets out the immunity of a diplomatic agent from the criminal jurisdiction of the country in which the diplomatic agent is working. A diplomatic agent has been defined in Article 1 of the convention as the head of the mission or a member of the diplomatic staff of the mission which includes administrative, technical and service staff of the mission. Therefore, strictly in accordance with the Vienna Convention, if Raymond Davis’s identity as a diplomatic agent is established, he should be let off the hook.

Armed crooks with a robbery police record are not innocents by any means. Ranting I read here is from angry people who will excuse armed robbery to claim they were murdered when in fact the crooks were "shot in the line of duty of being a stick up crook."

The Foreign Office of Pakistan, not the sub courts, is responsible for honoring Diplomatic Immunity which derives from International Law and Treaties and is above all laws of Pakistan.

If you want to check my long term friendship toward Pakistan check the archieves of the Karachi DAWN on line starting from shortly after 911 in 2001 down to the curren time. I think some of my more than 50 publications in DAWN have to be searched for using variants of Colonel George L. Singleton; George L. Singleton; and George Singleton as the writer.

 

[Awesome]

FO did not grant diplomatic status to Davis: US | DAWN.COM | Latest news, Breaking news, Pakistan News, World news, business, sport and multimedia

ISLAMABAD: The United States forcefully presented on Thursday its case for immunity under Geneva Convention for Raymond Davis, the American official accused of double murder in Lahore, but at the same time admitted that Pakistan`s Foreign Office did not grant diplomatic status to `administrative and technical staff` of foreign missions based here.

A diplomatic note was handed over to Foreign Office by the US embassy asking the government to release Davis in accordance with the country`s obligations under international law.

The note said Davis was mentioned, in the request for registration with FO, as non-diplomatic staff only to comply with its regulations which do not accept `technical and administrative` staff of foreign missions as diplomatic staff at the time of issuance of accreditation cards.

The latest edition of Foreign Office`s protocol manual (page 18) requires of all foreign missions to designate `administrative and technical staff` as `non-diplomatic staff`, even though it appears to be a clear deviation from the Vienna Convention`s Article 37, which clearly states “members of the administrative and technical staff of the mission… shall enjoy the privileges and immunities”.

[My Note: After "Privileges and Immunities Article 37 reads: "except that the immunity from civil and administrative jurisdiction"]

“The embassy complied with MFA (Ministry of Foreign Affairs) instructions,” the diplomatic note said, underscoring that this acknowledgement did not compromise his privileges and immunities under Vienna Convention on diplomatic relations of 1961.

This declaration “did not alter Pakistan`s obligations to honour Mr Davis`s privilege and immunities as an administrative and technical staff member”.

The embassy in its first statement on the Lahore incident had also referred to Davis as a consulate staffer and not a diplomat.

Davis had been notified to Pakistani authorities in January last year as having been assigned to the Islamabad mission as a `member of the administrative and technical staff`.Although over a year has passed since he was first notified by the US embassy, he hasn`t been registered as yet because of what Pakistani officials claim as `unresolved queries`. The American embassy, nevertheless, insists it hadn`t received any reply to its notification in respect of Davis`s posting in Pakistan.

Consequently, his status remained undefined. A US embassy official, at a background briefing for Dawn, said the notification by the embassy made Davis eligible for diplomatic immunity and not registration by FO, which he hadn`t been given as yet.

The diplomatic note further asked the Pakistan government to shed its ambiguous position on the status of the American official. The government, apparently because of feared consequences both domestic and bilateral, has so far been shying away from determining the status of the accused. Although, government officials in private discussions claim that Davis did not have a diplomatic status, publicly their stance has been that the issue would be decided by courts.

The embassy in its note threw the book at the government and accused it of violating both its international obligations and local laws by keeping Davis detained and not deciding on his status.

It reminded the Pakistan government that its own laws provided the procedure for resolving such contentious issues. Although not said explicitly, it implied that the government needed to first decide for itself whether or not it recognised Davis as a diplomat before courts adjudicated on it.

A reference was made to Pakistan`s Diplomatic and Consular Privileges Act of 1972, which states: “If any question arises whether or not any person is entitled to the privilege or immunity under this Act, a certificate issued by or under the authority of the federal government stating any fact relating to the question shall be conclusive evidence of that fact.” And hence the demand that the Foreign Office issue a certificate on his diplomatic status forthwith.

A US diplomat in the background briefing said the US wanted the Pakistan government to decide on the issue one way or the other. “Settling it through the media is ludicrous,” the official added, referring to the intense media debate.

A certification accepting Davis as a diplomat would naturally end the debate and pave way for his release and return to the US, but if the government decided otherwise, the diplomat suggested the matter would be resolved through bilateral negotiations, but wouldn`t say if that meant using the leverages that Washington had with Islamabad.

 

[53fd]

I am on record ever since 911 as a long term friend of Pakistan. Period.

I don't think disrespecting Pakistan's judicial system, its people, its policies comes under being a long term friend sir. Period.

I don't think you consider any Pakistani (or any other country's) source(s) as trustworthy if it doesn't suit your agenda. And btw sir, I've lived more than half my life in America, and I love Pakistan as well as America. But please, let all the evidences make you come to a conclusion, not the vice versa. You are older than me, and I didn't mean to disrespect you in anyway, but please be mindful of the sentiments of the Pakistani people as well. From all your posts above, I'm sorry to say that you have disparaged the Pakistani members here, and not even demonstrated an inkling of respect for Pakistan. It's a shame because I know firsthand that most Americans are not like this once they get full information, and I am disappointed that someone who has served in Pakistan would show such disrespect to it, a country that shows hospitality even to the point of its exploitation. Most people who have visited Pakistan have good things to say about the country, as compared to the media warriors.

Anyways, the US has admitted that the Foreign Office did not grant diplomatic status to Davis, because Pakistan's Foreign Office does not grant diplomatic status to `administrative and technical staff` of foreign missions based in the country. Case closed.

FO did not grant diplomatic status to Davis: US | DAWN.COM | Latest news, Breaking news, Pakistan News, World news, business, sport and multimedia

 

[American Eagle]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FO did not grant diplomatic status to Davis: US | DAWN.COM | Latest news, Breaking news, Pakistan News, World news, business, sport and multimedia

ISLAMABAD: The United States forcefully presented on Thursday its case for immunity under Geneva Convention for Raymond Davis, the American official accused of double murder in Lahore, but at the same time admitted that Pakistan`s Foreign Office did not grant diplomatic status to `administrative and technical staff` of foreign missions based here.

A diplomatic note was handed over to Foreign Office by the US embassy asking the government to release Davis in accordance with the country`s obligations under international law.

The note said Davis was mentioned, in the request for registration with FO, as non-diplomatic staff only to comply with its regulations which do not accept `technical and administrative` staff of foreign missions as diplomatic staff at the time of issuance of accreditation cards.

The latest edition of Foreign Office`s protocol manual (page 18) requires of all foreign missions to designate `administrative and technical staff` as `non-diplomatic staff`, even though it appears to be a clear deviation from the Vienna Convention`s Article 37, which clearly states “members of the administrative and technical staff of the mission… shall enjoy the privileges and immunities”.

“The embassy complied with MFA (Ministry of Foreign Affairs) instructions,” the diplomatic note said, underscoring that this acknowledgement did not compromise his privileges and immunities under Vienna Convention on diplomatic relations of 1961.

This declaration “did not alter Pakistan`s obligations to honour Mr Davis`s privilege and immunities as an administrative and technical staff member”.

The embassy in its first statement on the Lahore incident had also referred to Davis as a consulate staffer and not a diplomat.

Davis had been notified to Pakistani authorities in January last year as having been assigned to the Islamabad mission as a `member of the administrative and technical staff`.Although over a year has passed since he was first notified by the US embassy, he hasn`t been registered as yet because of what Pakistani officials claim as `unresolved queries`. The American embassy, nevertheless, insists it hadn`t received any reply to its notification in respect of Davis`s posting in Pakistan.

Consequently, his status remained undefined. A US embassy official, at a background briefing for Dawn, said the notification by the embassy made Davis eligible for diplomatic immunity and not registration by FO, which he hadn`t been given as yet.

The diplomatic note further asked the Pakistan government to shed its ambiguous position on the status of the American official. The government, apparently because of feared consequences both domestic and bilateral, has so far been shying away from determining the status of the accused. Although, government officials in private discussions claim that Davis did not have a diplomatic status, publicly their stance has been that the issue would be decided by courts.

The embassy in its note threw the book at the government and accused it of violating both its international obligations and local laws by keeping Davis detained and not deciding on his status.

It reminded the Pakistan government that its own laws provided the procedure for resolving such contentious issues. Although not said explicitly, it implied that the government needed to first decide for itself whether or not it recognised Davis as a diplomat before courts adjudicated on it.

A reference was made to Pakistan`s Diplomatic and Consular Privileges Act of 1972, which states: “If any question arises whether or not any person is entitled to the privilege or immunity under this Act, a certificate issued by or under the authority of the federal government stating any fact relating to the question shall be conclusive evidence of that fact.” And hence the demand that the Foreign Office issue a certificate on his diplomatic status forthwith.

A US diplomat in the background briefing said the US wanted the Pakistan government to decide on the issue one way or the other. “Settling it through the media is ludicrous,” the official added, referring to the intense media debate.

A certification accepting Davis as a diplomat would naturally end the debate and pave way for his release and return to the US, but if the government decided otherwise, the diplomat suggested the matter would be resolved through bilateral negotiations, but wouldn`t say if that meant using the leverages that Washington had with Islamabad.

 

[Awesome]

Under Article 37, Davis would have immunity from a speeding ticket, jay walking, not for capital crimes.

 

[Awesome]

Whether he is guilty or not - If he has diplomatic immunity then we will have to release him - It's sad but we have to follow International Rules otherwise our diplomats will receive similar treatment.

Even the American media is chill about it, they smell a rat too... I don't think we need to take the pressure, Americans are only going to push as much as we allow them to.

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations
1961

Vienna Convention's Article 37

Article 37
1.The members of the family of a diplomatic agent forming part of his household shall, if they are
not nationals of the receiving State, enjoy the privileges and immunities specified in articles 29 to 36.
2.Members of the administrative and technical staff of the mission, together with members of
their families forming part of their respective households, shall, if they are not nationals of orpermanently resident in the receiving State, enjoy the privileges and immunities specified in articles 29
to 35, except that the immunity from civil and administrative jurisdiction of the receiving State specified
in paragraph 1 of article 31 shall not extend to acts performed outside the course of their duties. They
shall also enjoy the privileges specified in article 36, paragraph 1, in respect of articles imported at the
time of first installation.
3.Members of the service staff of the mission who are not nationals of or permanently resident in
the receiving State shall enjoy immunity in respect of acts performed in the course of their duties,
exemption from dues and taxes on the emoluments they receive by reason of their employment and the
exemption contained in article 33.
4.Private servants of members of the mission shall, if they are not nationals of or permanently
resident in the receiving State, be exempt from dues and taxes on the emoluments they receive by reason
of their employment. In other respects, they may enjoy privileges and immunities only to the extent
admitted by the receiving State. However, the receiving State must exercise its jurisdiction over those
persons in such a manner as not to interfere unduly with the performance of the functions of the mission.

http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf