On January 27, 2011, Raymond Davis, a member of the staff of the US Consulate-General in Lahore, allegedly shot and killed two Pakistani motorcyclists at a traffic stop in Lahore. He claimed they were armed and about to rob him. A third Pakistani was killed when a U.S. consular car dispatched to help Davis allegedly crushed to death another motorcyclist while speeding along the wrong side of the road. Davis has been detained by the Lahore Police despite his diplomatic immunity and there has been growing public demand in Pakistan—partly spontaneous and partly instigated by anti-US religious elements— that he should be prosecuted in a Pakistani court and not handed over for trial in the US as would be normally done in such cases. The public anger has been aggravated by the alleged suicide of the wife of one of the Pakistanis killed and by the over-focus of the US State Department on the diplomatic immunity aspect of the case overlooking the human aspect of the case arising from the deaths of three Pakistanis due to the rash and negligent actions of two members of the Consular staff. I have been in receipt of some questions from readers on this subject. I answer them below:
Was Raymond Davis an officer of the USA’s Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)?
It is difficult to say, but my own assessment repeat assessment is that he is probably from the section of the US State Department, which is responsible for the physical security of US diplomatic and consular missions abroad and their personnel. This section does take serving and retired officers on deputation from the CIA and other security agencies. It has often been alleged that it also outsources some of its tasks to private security agencies and gives their staff diplomatic cover (protection ). I tend to believe that the reflexes of Davis and the other officer who rushed to his help were not those of a professional CIA officer. Professional CIA officers are well-trained to maintain their cool under critical circumstances and avoid over-reaction.
Was the US correct in giving diplomatic status to someone who is not performing well-recognised diplomatic functions?
Over the years, there have been complaints from many countries that some governments are in the habit of indiscriminately giving diplomatic status to their officers posted in their foreign missions irrespective of whether they perform well-recognised diplomatic functions or not. Despite this, this practice continues. In the ultimate analysis, it is up to the State Department to decide who among its officers posted in Pakistan will have diplomatic status. In the initial stages, before the officer leaves for Pakistan, the government of Pakistan has the right to disagree with the decision of the State Department and refuse to give him a visa on his diplomatic passport to enable him to take up the job. But once the Pakistani Foreign Office gave a diplomatic visa to Raymond Davis and allowed him to join his post in Pakistan, it is bound to respect his diplomatic immunity and cannot wriggle out of this.
It has been alleged that the two Pakistanis killed by Davis belonged to the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). Can it be correct?
It is difficult to say. From the way they were following Davis, I tend to assess that they were police officers of Pakistan’s Intelligence Bureau (IB), which comes under the Ministry of the Interior, trained in surveillance duties who were probably keeping a mobile surveillance on Davis. They could also be police officers on deputation with the ISI for performing surveillance duties.
What offences has Davis committed under Pakistani laws?
He has committed two offences. The first offence is carrying a weapon outside the Consulate premises. It has been reported by the Express Tribune of Pakistan that some months ago Rehman Mallik, the Interior Minister, had withdrawn the provision under which foreign diplomats posted in Pakistan were allowed to carry weapons outside their places of work for their personal protection after obtaining a licence from an authorized magistrate. Now, while foreign missions are allowed to keep weapons inside their premises for the protection of the premises, their staff are not allowed to carry weapons outside the premises for their personal protection. They have to seek police assistance if they apprehend any threat to their personal security while moving about outside their places of work. By carrying a weapon even after the withdrawal of the provision, Davis violated Pakistani laws. In my view, a professional CIA officer might not have done this. The second offence committed by Davis was to open fire on the persons following him thereby allegedly killing them.
It has been claimed by the US that he opened fire in exercise of his right of self-defence?
It is for the court to decide whether the circumstances of the case justified his opening fire in self-defence.
Whose responsibility it is to investigate and prosecute the case?
The responsibility for the initial investigation is that of the Pakistani Police. They are required to investigate irrespective of whether he enjoyed diplomatic status or not. However, they do not have the right to prosecute him before a Pakistani court in view of his diplomatic status.
Can the police subject him to custodial interrogation during the investigation?
If diplomatic practices are correctly followed, Davis cannot be kept in police or judicial custody in Pakistan. The normal course would have been to hand him over to the US Consulate with a request that he should remain in Pakistan to assist the investigating authorities and that he should be allowed to leave for the US only after the investigating authorities certify that his presence in Pakistan is no longer required. Under the normal procedure, he would have been interrogated either in the Consulate or in a police station without taking him into police custody. The Pakistani authorities have violated this procedure by detaining him in their custody and by producing him before a court—apparently for seeking his police remand— without allegedly keeping the US Embassy in the picture.
How has the US State Department handled the case?
Badly. The moment the incidents happened the US should have announced a preliminary compensation to the families of the three Pakistanis killed with the promise to consider more after the facts are established. I do not get the impression that this was done. There has been some panic in the US reflexes possibly due to fears that something could happen to Davis in Pakistani custody. This has led to a series of over-reactions such as delaying an already announced visit of President Asif Ali Zardari to the US, the reported cancellation of a meeting between Mrs. Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, and the Pakistani Foreign Minister in the margins of the Munich Security Conference etc. Due to the surge in the US Drone strikes in the tribal belt, there is already some criticism in Pakistan that the US does not respect Pakistan’s sovereignty and that the Zardari regime is not standing up to the US to protect Pakistan’s sovereignty. Such criticism will intensify now. In recent months, there were indications that the post-Lal Masjid raid anger which led to an escalation of jihadi terrorism may be subsiding. These incidents in Lahore and the US mishandling of the sequel could provide fresh oxygen to the anger resulting in a fresh spurt in acts of jihadi terrorism.
What will be the ultimate denouement in the case?
The US will stick to its stand that it cannot withdraw the diplomatic immunity of Davis and that he will be prosecuted before a US and not a Pakistani court. The government of Pakistan knows that in view of its dependence on the US, it has no other option but to accede to the US request to let him go to the US to face a trial. But this has been made difficult by the mishandling by the US State Department and by its over-reactions. In such sensitive cases involving a country where anti-US anger is already high and anti- Zardari suspicion is already strong, undue pressure could prove counter-productive. A complicating factor is the assertive judiciary headed by Chief Justic Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhury of the Pakistan Supreme Court. His enquiries into cases of missing persons—many of them informally handed over to the US by the Musharraf regime for the investigation of their suspected links with Al Qaeda— have already badly affected mutual legal assistance between the US and Pakistan. Before he took over as the Chief Justice, there were over 200 cases of such informal arrests and hand-over to the US. Sine he took over, there has not been a single case. From his observations and rulings in the court in petitions by relatives of missing persons, it is evident that he feels that Pakistani governments have been unduly deferential to the US in cases involving the rights of Pakistani citizens. If he or the judges under him insist that by carrying a weapon, Davis has violated the conditions of his diplomatic immunity and hence could be prosecuted in Pakistan, the US and Pakistan will face a serious dilemma in sorting out this case.
It has been alleged that the hitherto strong stand of Islamabad has been motivated by the ISI’s anger over a private complaint filed against Lt.Gen.Ahmed Shuja Pasha, the DG of the ISI, in a New York court demanding his prosecution for his alleged involvement in the 26/11 terrorist strikes in Mumbai? Some have been claiming that Islamabad has been wantonly taking a seemingly strong stand to get more assistance from the US?
Present evidence does not support such allegations or claims.
B. Raman is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai.
How many times has law taken its own course in the land of the pure? Ask yourself why a country with an alleged GDP of "$200 billion" and "fourth largest" standing army in the world has to prostrate itself before America, China and the Arabs. Face it, if you could "do away with the $1.5 Billion(pittance)", you would have done so. You reap as you sow and years of culturing marauding jihadis has finally come to bite you on your arse. Pakistan has choices, it's upto you to choose the right one for your country.
Haven't seen it reported here, but Pak's ex-Foreign Minister SM Qureishi says he lost his job because he wouldn't certify Davis as a diplomat. He says that there is no record of Davis with theFpreign Ministry and that efforts are on to fudge records. So who's lying?
With Davis in judicial custody it should be easy to verify whether he does indeed have diplomatic status or not. Whether he is CIA, Blackwater or whatever, is irrelevant if he was issued a diplomatic visa to enter Pakistan. No country lists its spooks - CIA, KGB, RAW, ISI etc - as intelligence agents. They are always cultural attaches, or something equally innocuous.
Pakistan was created by the idiots, for the idiots,and run by idiots as well.
I think Mr. Davis is a special force person hunting for the suspected terrorists.He had the gun ( against Pakistani law),GSP and some paraphernalia. American usually consider Pakistanis,Iraqis, Iranians as less than human who can be shot and nothing will happen. The threatening noises from State Department and Security council has made the matters worse. According to ABC news Pakistani Ambassador was yelled at by the security advisor to President Obama. Clearly USA has very low regard for Pakistan and Pakistanis have cooperated in their own humiliations. It is time for Pakistan (with GDP of almost $200 Billion) to do away with aid of $1.5Billion(pittance). If they try they can find waste of $1.5B in government departments. This dependency on aid is no good for both Pakistan and USA.Let the law take its course. If convicted, it will cause rupture in Pakistani-USA relations which won't be a bad thing. People in both countries don't like this relationship.
Pakistanis live in a world of delusion & conspiracy.The realty is that Pakistan is bust,with an exploding population of 180 million people, Most of them are illiterate & desperately poor, thanks to their corrupt fuedal politicians & well entranched army.Pakistan will sink without America's billions of dollar aid.Pakis should stop biting the hand that feeds them.Pakistan is dependent ,for it's very suvival, on American aid & to some extent to it's Chinky friends.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT