Raymond Davis Case: Developing Story

[third eye]

All sorts of flip flops.. within GOP & PPP.


Govt bows low to US frowns | Pakistan | News | Newspaper | Daily | English | Online

By: Nisar Mehdi | Published: February 15, 2011

KARACHI – “Raymond Davis (the American who shot dead two Pakistanis) enjoys diplomatic immunity and has an official visa,” said PPP Information Secretary Fauzia Wahab in the first overt vindication of the popular belief that the PPP-led government would hardly hold its ground in face of American pressure on the issue.

The statement is in stark contrast to former foreign minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi’s earlier disclosure that “Davis isn’t a diplomat according to the Foreign Office record”. Dropping Qureshi from the slimline cabinet as foreign minister itself was indicative of the posture government has now taken openly.

Addressing a press conference at the Karachi Press Club, PPP Fauzia Wahab said that Pakistan is the signatory of Vienna Convention, therefore, all the diplomats enjoy immunity, adding that diplomats cannot be arrested under this convention. She said that Davis possess diplomatic passport, therefore, he enjoyed immunity and had an official visa.

“We have always abided by international laws and conventions,” Fauzia said. “Davis has an official business visa, so why argue and why we are risking our overall good reputation before the rest of the world?”
The US State Department on Saturday postponed a round of high-level talks with Afghanistan and Pakistan following failed attempts to get Pakistan to release Davis. US lawmakers have threatened to cut payments to Pakistan, the beneficiary of $7.5 billion dollars of aid and $2 billion in military aid, and Washington has warned that high-level dialogue is at risk unless Davis is freed.

“America is the largest market for Pakistan, with whom we earn four billion dollars. Most Pakistanis who live in the United States send bulk of remittances to us to support our economy,” said Fauzia.

Hundreds of Pakistanis have taken to the streets demanding that Davis be hanged over the killings. A third Pakistani man was run over and killed by a US consulate vehicle that made a failed attempt to recover Davis.Davis was arrested Jan 27 in Lahore after he shot dead two men on a motorcycle.

Lahore police decided to charge him under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code that deals with ‘murder by design’. The question of his diplomatic immunity had not been entertained by the provincial and federal governments openly until Fauzia’s statement.

To a question, Fauzia said that then foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi had violated party discipline by issuing “irresponsible statements on such a sensitive issue”.

Qureshi had said that US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and US envoy to Pakistan Cameron Munter telephoned him and put pressure to “confirm diplomatic immunity for Raymond although it was not confirmed by Foreign Office records”.

Pakistan’s Foreign Office had initially declared that Raymond did not enjoy diplomatic immunity. A couple of petitions have also been filed against his diplomatic status and his possible handing-over to the US by the Lahore High Court.

“America is the largest market for Pakistan, with whom we earn four billion dollars. Most Pakistanis who live in the United States send bulk of remittances to us to support our economy,” said Fauzia while pleading immunity for Davis.

“It is against the party discipline that you reject the decision of the party leadership, his (Qureshi’s) refusal was not appropriate,” she said adding that Qureshi’s statement in the newspapers was also against the party rules.

She said the party would issue him a show cause notice to seek his views and then decide his fate in the light of party rules and regulations. She also said new foreign minister would be appointed very soon.

She also said serious disciplinary action will be taken against Qureshi for violating the party discipline and humiliating its leadership.
She also said Qureshi’s performance as foreign minister during the entire tenure had been below par, saying he failed to support President Zardari when his foreign trips came under question.

However, a subsequent statement by Farhatullah Babar, the presidential spokesman, said that Fauzia’s statement was her personal view and not the party’s stance on the issue.

 

[Omar1984]

Video info. posted by youtube user ViennaConvention6341

Raymond Davis case - Barack Obama, BADLY ill-informed on Vienna Conventions on Consular Relations

President Barack Obama makes a statement during a news conference on the White House complex in Washington, Tuesday, Feb. 15, 2011. -- AP Photo/Charles Dharapak

n his first public remarks on a case that has cast a chill over an already uneasy partnership, Obama said that detained official Raymond Davis enjoyed diplomatic immunity under the Vienna Conventions.

"We expect Pakistan... to abide by the same convention," Obama told a news conference.

"We're going to be continuing to work with the Pakistani government to get this person released," he said.

Prez Obama is misinformed about the Vienna convention: Here is the relevant law:

The US State Department is also carefully avoiding mentioning a later treaty, the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963. That treaty, which extends and further clarifies, and where there may be a conflict, would supersede the earlier treaty, states in Section II, Article 41 in its first paragraph regarding the "Personal inviolability of consular officers":

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.

The law here would seem to be quite clear. If Davis was in Lahore on anything other than official consular business, and if he killed two people "in cold blood" as the Lahore prosecutor has stated, then legal authorities in Pakistan are absolutely within their rights under the Vienna Conventions to be holding him for trial.

"Obviously, we're concerned about the loss of life. We're not callous about that, but there is a broader principle at stake," Obama said.

The real BROADER PRINCIPLE is the rule of Law and operation of judiciary without PRESSURE.

The Vienna 63-41 is very clear that Raymond Davis is to be tried in the court of the land where he committed the crime and executed for murder - if the court finds him guilty.

Obama said that diplomatic immunity was critical because otherwise diplomats who "deliver to tough messages to countries where we disagree with them" will "start being vulnerable to prosecution locally." "That's untenable. It means they can't do their job," Obama said.

It is untenable if a immunity is claimed for a criminal and he or she is labelled as diplomat.

I can claim that the alleged murderer of Chandra Levy has diplomatic immunity. Also there is no proof if she assaulted him as Monica assaulted Bill Clinton.

 

[VCheng]

Davis is ‘a diplomat’, declares FO

Updated at 30 PST Wednesday, February 16, 2011
ISLAMABAD: A letter written to Law Ministry from Foreign Office, declared the US double murderer of two Pakistani citizens, Raymond Davis, ‘a diplomat’, Geo News reported late Tuesday.

According to letter, US citizen Raymond Davis was designated in Pakistan at US consulate in Lahore as ‘a diplomat’ and all the same, he enjoys ‘diplomatic immunity’ according to Vienna Convention.

A few minutes ago, US President Obama and Senator Kerry demanded Pakistan to acknowledge Davis as a diplomat and urged for his early release.

....and another key piece of OFFICIAL evidence falls into place, just as predicted.

Again, I stress to all, keeping rhetroic down and thinking through the process as it proceeds calmly is essential.

 

[Solomon2]

...lets for a minute assume that he has diplomatic immunity - big deal - he has been caught red handed with possessions that imply nefarious activities, and very likely instigating terrorism in pakistan...its for this reason that PERHAPS elements in the pakistani govt are insistent on saying he was NOT a diplomat, because that would make them look complicit?

Has any Pakistani official actually said this on the record? For it doesn't matter what kind of "nefarious activity" a diplomat with immunity is suspected of committing; he has immunity, period. A government can expel him and (if a U.S. diplomat) can initiate legal proceedings against him in the U.S., but the host government cannot hold him in prison, not even for an investigation.

If that offends your sense of justice, well, that's quite normal. No two peoples have the same sense of what is just and what is not. So instead of justice we have fairness - standards unbiased independent of context. The standards of diplomatic immunity apply to everyone who has it no matter what they are doing and in every country.

 

[American Eagle]

Aye, Aye! Will do and have been doing.

 

[Solomon2]

...a later treaty, the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963. That treaty, which extends and further clarifies, and where there may be a conflict, would supersede the earlier treaty...The law here would seem to be quite clear. If Davis was in Lahore on anything other than official consular business, and if he killed two people "in cold blood" as the Lahore prosecutor has stated, then legal authorities in Pakistan are absolutely within their rights under the Vienna Conventions to be holding him for trial.

Quiz time, folks! Let's see if any Pakistanis out there have learned enough the past few days to answer Omar's assertions. I'm not going to repeat myself this time!

 

[Omar1984]

I wonder what would be the reaction of the American public if a Pakistani "diplomat" shot two white Americans in New York on broad day light and then claimed he killed those white Americans in self defence.

 

[SekrutYakhni]

This was a precedent set by American and Pakistani government. If he was a diplomat, his status would have been acclaimed right away by American government. Instead, they had to take 'few' days to come to that conclusion. Let alone, bullets were shot from the behind etc etc

 

[Developereo]

Question for Americans:

Don't you think the US should waive immunity in the interest of justice and mutual trust? After all, this is no mere parking violation; there are three deaths involved. If they feel Davis cannot get a fair trial in Lahore, they can make the immunity conditional on FBI involvement in the investigation. It would be a good face saving compromise for both sides.

 

[Omar1984]

Senate body to support Qureshi on Davis immunity row

ISLALABAD: The Senate’s Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs is all set to take the PPP to task while backing Shah Mehmood Qureshi on the status of diplomatic immunity to US citizen Raymond Davis.

The panel is headed by opposition Senator Saleem Saifullah Khan who said on Tuesday: “We have sought a detailed report from Foreign Office (FO) as the US official could not be given free hand to keep on killing innocent people.”

The FO’s report, ‘irresponsible’ statements, and safeguarding the country’s interests amid the situation emerged involving Raymond Davis are the key areas to be discussed in the Standing Committee session.

“Qureshi’s absence from the federal cabinet has left the government with no worthwhile minister of his caliber,” the panel chairman Saleem Saifullah Khan said.

Lauding the ex-foreign minister’s relentless contribution on external front, he said President Zardari and PM Gilani maintained the incapable and corrupt ministers instead of expelling them. “Qureshi was alone in PM Gilani’s team, who not only proved to be free of charges but also emerged to be the man of honest and upright character in discharging his assignments.”

The ex-foreign minister, he said, adopted a principled position on changing his portfolio as well as on Raymond Davis case. “His preference to quit instead of accepting another portfolio has brought another credit for him.”

No foreigner, he said, could be permitted to take the law in his hand and kill innocent people. “Although we have relations with the United States yet the life of our citizen is as equal as of an American.”

Saleem Saifullah had all-out sympathies with Qureshi. “The PPP bosses have played a final stroke to purge the cabinet of those carrying reputation.” Zardari and Gilani, he said, should have removed the ministers who are carrying various charges rather letting the men like former foreign minister to go. “I think Hina Rabbani is given the portfolio of State Minister (foreign affairs) just to fulfill a formality on papers. “External affairs, he said, is a sensitive subject and a key area for any country to protect national interests globally.”

To a query, he said a diplomatic immunity to Davis would lead nothing but a source to encourage him and other foreigners to kill more people. “We have also taken in consideration other aspects as not only two people were killed but widow of one of them also committed suicide.”

The PML Like-Minded chief said he would convene the Standing Committee meeting within days after the FO hands over a report explaining official position as to whether immunity can be given, under what circumstances and as to whether the government is paving way for such a move.

Saifullah regretted the FO has an extremely slow process to move forward. “I asked its authorities to submit a report but they have yet to come up with a response despite passage of one week,” he elaborates.

He expressed his dismay over the recent conflicting and controversial statements on part of the PPP and its government functionaries on Davis case. “Fauzia Wahab thinks after she speaks, irrespective of whether her words prove to be destructive for the country.”

The National Assembly’s Committee (on foreign affairs) is headed by ANP President Asfandyar Wali as he postponed for more than twice its meetings. Asfandyar Wali is expected to follow the government line since his party is in amalgamation with the PPP in Centre and three provinces, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Balochistan and Sindh.

Senate body to support Qureshi on Davis immunity row

 

[Omar1984]

Davis is killer, Lahore police tell judge

LAHORE: The investigation wing of the Lytton Road police and prosecution officials submitted on Tuesday a double-murder challan (preliminary police report) against US national Raymond Davis to the court of Lahore District and Sessions Judge (DSJ) Abdul Waheed Khan.

After consulting some additional district and sessions judges, the DSJ marked the case to the court of ADSJ Mohammad Youssuf Aujla.

An official said police had formally charged Davis under Section 302, declaring him as killer of Faizan and Faheem at Qartaba Chowk in Mozang on Jan 27.

He said the home department had issued a notification to conduct the trial in jail because of security concerns.

According to the police report, Lytton Road SHO Atif Meraj recovered a belt, a pistol pouch, a handbag, two purses, five cellphones, Pakistani and foreign currency and two National Identity Cards from the murdered youths.

Davis, according to witnesses, first opened fire on Faizan and Fahim from his car and then shot them from the back while they were fleeing.

“The police, however, captured Davis while he was trying to flee in his car and recovered a 9mm pistol with five magazines, 75 bullets, a passport, a long-range wireless set, a global positioning system (GPS) with charger, two cellphones, a telescope, infrared headlight, camera, torch, survival kit, memory cards, packed ‘niswar’, local and US currency, ATM cards, a PIA ticket, blank cheques etc.”

Davis claimed during investigation that the men wanted to rob him and he had killed them in self-defence. After killing Faizan and Fahim, Davis also photographed them and called the US consulate to send someone to help him.

Responding to the phone call, a vehicle (Land Cruiser) carrying some persons reached the spot and crushed to death another man, Ibadur Rehman.

According to the challan, Davis’s claim of having acted in self-defence couldn’t be proved because he had killed the men while they were running away and they had no bullet loaded in their pistol.

“Not a single eyewitness saw the murdered youths trying to loot the accused at gunpoint,” it said, adding that the accused didn’t cooperate with the investigators and refused to give any statement on the instructions of the US consulate in Lahore.

“Davis has been proved to be guilty and be tried under the murder charges,” the investigators said.


Davis is killer, Lahore police tell judge | newspaper | DAWN.COM

 

[Solomon2]

I wonder what would be the reaction of the American public if a Pakistani "diplomat" shot two white Americans in broad day light and then claimed he killed those white Americans in self defence.

Premediated murder as some twisted form of revenge for the incident with Davis? We'd be pretty angry. Then I guess we'd kick out not just the offending diplomat but a sizable portion of Pakistan's U.S. and U.N. delegations - for given the Davis incident and the GoP's response it would be difficult to believe any protest by the GoP that the offender acted alone, rather than with authorization from above.

(What these people would do the rest of their lives I don't know. If Pakistan attempted to send them to another country that country might feel insulted at best, threatened at worst. They either would not be accepted or if allowed in would be avoided by their counterparts and thus could never function effectively. So their careers would probably be ruined.)

After expulsion the police and FBI would start investigating which Pakistanis initiated and authorized such a plot, pursuant to seeking international warrants for their arrest. That would mean they could never again travel outside of Pakistan with safety.

 

[RabzonKhan]

Raymond Davis case: Bitter truths


By Raza Rumi
Published in The Express Tribune, February 16th, 2011.


The case of Raymond Davis is getting intensely intriguing. Sad that a legal issue has assumed mammoth political significance. It is now a battle between Pakistan’s elected and unelected institutions. Facts have been lost in the rhetoric and fiction prevails, regurgitating the narratives that we have weaved about ourselves and the rest of the world. Hate the US and blame it for all our weaknesses, even if it entails violating our international obligations.

It is time to ask how an operative can be in Pakistan for almost three years without clarity about his status. If there were doubts about Davis, why didn’t our brave security agencies express these concerns before he killed someone? Why was he not declared persona non grata for the ‘nefarious’ activities he is now being accused of? If he did not enjoy diplomatic status, why didn’t the Foreign Office say so on day one? Why the deliberate ambiguity, fuelled by an orchestrated media frenzy?

This saga illustrates typical Pakistani emotionalism. If the sending state declares someone a diplomat and the receiving state accepts him, that’s the end of the matter. Those who rant that Davis’ visa mentions ‘Official Business’ and he’s a mere contractor need to get their facts right. Pakistan’s diplomatic visa does not carry the words ‘Diplomatic Visa’ imprinted on it. When Pakistani authorities endorse a visa saying ‘Official Business’ on a diplomatic passport, they recognise that the person is travelling to our country under diplomatic immunity. If he stays here on assignment, he gets a diplomatic ID card with his immunity status printed on its back.

It is also well-known that our Foreign Office maintains a list of people who have been extended diplomatic immunity. Article 31 of the 1961 Vienna Convention clearly covers technical and administrative staff, as pointed out by lawyer Asad Jamal in his recent analysis (see The Friday Times, February 11-17). When someone covered by immunity invokes it after committing a crime, the proper procedure is for the police to check that list. It is a matter of a couple of hours at best. There shouldn’t have been confusion about immunity, but motivated officials simply passed the buck. No one wanted to appear to be ‘supporting’ an American ‘murderer’.

In the recently leaked video of Davis’ conversation with the police (why was it videotaped, if not for political mileage), Davis is repeatedly asking for his passport, which could have answered a few questions. But who cares about facts? The popular reaction is that an evil American shot innocent Pakistanis. We are unclear about his diplomatic status because he was a contractor. Once again, I was amused to read stories about how that ‘American stooge’, our ambassador in Washington, gave Davis a visa to conduct secret operations in Pakistan. There seems to be no shortage of black humour in our dear homeland.

We have missed the chance to demonstrate that we are a rule-based state, compliant with international law. Our government could have easily acknowledged the principle of immunity, and demanded that the US waive it (as happened in the famous case of a Georgian diplomat in US) or that Davis be tried in his own country (as happened in case of a Russian diplomat in Canada). Our third legal option was to do what Britain did with Libya: Break off diplomatic relations when Libya refused to waive immunity for a diplomat who killed a British policewoman. Instead, we created an emotional argument and will end up doing many intellectual and legal calisthenics before setting the man free under pressure.

Emotionalism reigns supreme. We hate America but not American aid or arms. We have a former foreign minister scoring brownie points for his honourable defiance of the US, a foreign secretary who is giving unclear signals and a media that wants Davis to be hanged tomorrow, preferably without a trial. The bitter truth is that the merits of Davis’ case are marginal to the current hype in Pakistan.

The writer is consulting editor, The Friday Times

 

[Omar1984]

Premediated murder as some twisted form of revenge for the incident with Davis? We'd be pretty angry. Then I guess we'd kick out not just the offending diplomat but a sizable portion of Pakistan's U.S. and U.N. delegations - for given the Davis incident and the GoP's response it would be difficult to believe any protest by the GoP that the offender acted alone, rather than with authorization from above.

(What these people would do the rest of their lives I don't know. If Pakistan attempted to send them to another country that country might feel insulted at best, threatened at worst. They either would not be accepted or if allowed in would be avoided by their counterparts and thus could never function effectively. So their careers would probably be ruined.)

After expulsion the police and FBI would start investigating which Pakistanis initiated and authorized such a plot, pursuant to seeking international warrants for their arrest. That would mean they could never again travel outside of Pakistan with safety.

Solomon you know as much as I do if the situation was reversed and a Pakistani "diplomat" did the same in the United States as Raymond Davis did in Pakistan, the Pakistani "diplomat" would be labelled a terrorist within 5 minutes in all U.S. news channel and news paper, and U.S. would never hand over the Pakistani "diplomat" to the Pakistan government neither any request from the Pakistani government would be taken seriously.

 

[Omar1984]

Raymond Davis and the Vienna Conventions

Shah Mahmood Qureshi’s recent statement that Raymond Davis does not enjoy diplomatic immunity may have surprised some of those ‘experts’ who have been quoting the Vienna Convention to tell us that there was simply option for Pakistan but to ‘hand over’ Davis to the United States.

His statement also suggests that these so-called experts might have got it wrong after all, particularly because there are in fact two separate Vienna Conventions that deal with the issue. While these conventions provide certain privileges and immunities, at the same time, they also place certain responsibilities on the way diplomatic and consular staff are expected to conduct themselves in their host countries. For some reason, the focus of the entire debate on this issue has been only on the immunities and privileges and we seem to have been overlooking the other side of the coin.

As a student of international law I am aware that the spirit in which the Vienna Conventions were framed and adopted was to promote friendly relations between member states in addition to providing a code of conduct for the members of consular and diplomatic staff to act in a responsible manner.

It would be ludicrous to suggest that the Vienna Convention was aimed only at granting some sort of a license to diplomats or consular staff to commit crimes in their host countries.

This spirit has been quite explicitly articulated in the preamble of the Vienna Convention 1961, and I quote: “the purpose of such privileges and immunities is not to benefit individuals but to ensure the efficient performance of the functions of diplomatic missions as representing States.”

It also states that the Convention is aimed at contributing towards “development of friendly relations among nations.” This view is further substantiated through Article 41, which states that “it is the duty of all persons enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State.”

So, my question would be that if a diplomat or consular officer is found carrying weapons (in violation of the host country’s law) would it not bring him or her in breach of Article 41 of the Vienna Convention 1961? This article clearly requires diplomats to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving state, and it would be contrary to the spirit of the Vienna Conventions to seek immunity for a consular officer who not only carries lethal weapons but will also use them to kill citizens of the host state.

Article 42 places certain additional conditions on the diplomats when it states that “a diplomatic agent shall not engage in any professional or commercial activity.” In other words a diplomat or consular officer is mandated only to carry out his “official duties as a diplomat.” These duties are defined in Article 3 of the same Convention as being aimed at “promoting friendly relations”. No reasonable diplomat or consular officer can argue that he needs to carry weapons or kill citizens of the host state to carry out his diplomatic or consular duties. Therefore, any such activity that requires him to do this, would certainly go beyond his agreed mandate and consequently bring him breach of Article 42 as well.

We must also recognize the distinction between a “Diplomat” and a “Consular Officer” as there are two separate Vienna Conventions that deal with each category. (a) The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961 and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963. In simple terms, the staff associated with an Embassy of a state situated in a capital of the host country would be referred to as a “Diplomat” under the 1961 Convention, whereas those associated with the Consulate Generals in different cities of the same state would be “Consular Officers”, covered under the 1963 Convention.

This brings us to the main and perhaps the most relevant question in this issue. Does a “consular officer” associated with a Consulate General of a state situated a city like Lahore (or Karachi) enjoy “Diplomatic” immunity? The answer would have to be ‘No’, because such officers would fall under the scope of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963. Article 41 of this Convention does not offer immunity on “grave offences”.

It states clearly that: “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.” I don’t think anyone can dispute that a double murder is perhaps the most gravest of all crimes.

However, despite all that, some observers argue that the matter may have already reached a point, which is beyond mere legal technicalities, as there is considerable public outrage surrounding the Lahore incident and any unpopular decision by the government may spell trouble for its own survival.

Ordinary Pakistanis see Davis as someone who has not only breached local laws but has committed the gravest of all crimes by shooting two Pakistanis in broad daylight. It now remains to be seen whether Davis will end up facing trial in Pakistan, or would the government ultimately succumb to mounting US pressure.

All of this has happened at a volatile time when the Middle East is already facing a wave of popular uprisings that have forced US-backed governments to collapse. At this juncture foreign minister’s decision to relinquish his ministerial position is quite interesting. Apparently he seems to have chosen to side with public sentiment on the issue but the question is why has he chosen to make such statements only after it became clear to him that he is not being offered the Foreign Ministry in the cabinet re-shuffle? The response by the new Minister for Information, Dr Firdous Ashiq, has already suggested that there might be more than what meets the eye, but I think it might not be a good idea to play politics on such a sensitive issue which seems to be putting a lot of strain on Pakistan-US relations already.

The writer is noted media personality, Executive Director of the World Forum, and a former Ambassador. He can be contacted on JavedMalik78@yahoo.co

Raymond Davis and the Vienna Conventions