Raymond Davis Case: LHC rules murder trial valid, rejects immunity from prosecution

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

Doubtful. Pakistan broke off diplomatic relations with the Taliban on November 21, 2001 link. The ex-Ambassador was thus declared persona non grata and had over a week to leave (Article 44 of the 1961 Convention) but did not for some reason did not do so, or else he left and immediately returned. Only after that period was he picked up by Pakistan's security services.

Wao , Just Wao .. Solmon2 , Your efforsts fail to see that the guy was an ambasador , He was arrested right from the embassy, Even still if he had to be deported he should have been deported to afghanistan but not to Guantanamo Bay where the Americans had made all the arrangements for his sadistic and tragic ordeal .. !!!

I often wonder , the best thing about America is American Laws Accommodate the Outlaws with such perfection that no one else could ever achieve such a feat.

 

[Solomon2]

Even still if he had to be deported he should have been deported to afghanistan -

The protocol is to provide the means for the ex-Ambassador to depart as soon as possible. Why was he in Pakistan a week later? Did he refuse to go, did he leave and come back, or was he prevented from leaving somehow? If he refused or returned his immunity would have vanished. If he was prevented from leaving Pakistan is at fault.

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

Pakistan is at fault.

The US demanded these men to be taken to gitmo , It was the US which forced Pakistan to handover the alikes of taliban Since Pakistan was threatened to be bombed to stone age and the US had clear intentions of attacking Afghanistan.
Even though Mullah Omer offerd the just trail of OBL but the corporate was set and dice was rolled to initiate an open ended war in this region to meet American imperialistic ambitions just at the behalf of an American oil company was'nt entertained with the CentGas PipeLine Project.

 

[Solomon2]

The US demanded these men to be taken to gitmo , It was the US which forced Pakistan -

The U.S. doesn't "force" Pakistan to do anything. Davis would be in the U.S. now if it did. Pakistan would never have gone to war with India in 1965 if the U.S. could have helped it. East Pakistan would have remained under Islamabad rule if the U.S. had had the power.

I've said it before: the problem with Pakistan is that it has retained its colonial government, it's just that the British are gone. They have not been replaced by Americans, rather Pakistanis have generated their own corrupt crew to steer the ship of state.

but the corporate was set and dice was rolled to initiate an open ended war in this region to meet American imperialistic ambitions -

I don't think you believe that. And if you have friends who believe that you can point out that if the U.S. really was prone to go to war over oil the U.S. would have conquered all the oil-producing states from Libya to the Gulf decades ago. Does anybody think any Arab state possessed the strength to stop the U.S. when it fields a half-million-man army?

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

Davis would be in the U.S. now if it did.

He will be in US.How Dare a third world country could be entertained with alternative choices.How could the Justice and Law and Order/Democratic system in Pakistan be strengthened so much that it challages the wrong play of a super power like USA intersts.How dare a third world country like Pakistan makes such a move.Already the cost of daring such a feat is begining to appear in the limlight.So Davis will go home unarguably.

I've said it before: the problem with Pakistan is that it has retained its colonial government, it's just that the British are gone. They have not been replaced by Americans, rather Pakistanis have generated their own corrupt crew to steer the ship of state.

I don't think you believe that. And if you have friends who believe that you can point out that if the U.S. really was prone to go to war over oil the U.S. would have conquered all the oil-producing states from Libya to the Gulf decades ago. Does anybody think any Arab state possessed the strength to stop the U.S. when it fields a half-million-man army?

No body pocess that force.The US does have economically conquered those arabs, all those drilling companies end up pumping billions into US either through out-dated Arms deals or dev firms doing buisness there.Plus the cost charged to drill is not in $$ but in Oil Barrels and share in net production.The US does have a virtual economic hold over the ME and also maintains a sizeable millitary prsence to ensure that economic hold.Who ever challanges them either ends up like the Late King Faisal of saudia arabi or the unfortunate Saddam Hussain. BTW its off topic but.
The fact is quite evident from the point that Condelliza rits and Dick Cheny were among the board of governors including Hamid Karzai who was the reagional consultant of that Oil Company which was not granted the CentGas pieline project.And from there things between Talibs and Uncle Sam begin to shake up.. We all aware of what that has ended up in.. like the issue of retired US millitary servicemen turned Blackwater mercanaries from sent over here to do the dirty job just to make a living out of it , is perhaps one of the dots in a hugely painted picture.

 

[fida jan]

The U.S. doesn't "force" Pakistan to do anything. Davis would be in the U.S. now if it did. Pakistan would never have gone to war with India in 1965 if the U.S. could have helped it. East Pakistan would have remained under Islamabad rule if the U.S. had had the power.

I've said it before: the problem with Pakistan is that it has retained its colonial government, it's just that the British are gone. They have not been replaced by Americans, rather Pakistanis have generated their own corrupt crew to steer the ship of state.

I don't think you believe that. And if you have friends who believe that you can point out that if the U.S. really was prone to go to war over oil the U.S. would have conquered all the oil-producing states from Libya to the Gulf decades ago. Does anybody think any Arab state possessed the strength to stop the U.S. when it fields a half-million-man army?

this guy is crazy

tell me do you remember the sacking of mussadiq in iran to restore the shah just for sack of american interest, and you say US has no negative influence, and we have a 60 year old colonial influence???

u say us didnt influence pakistan to win its 1970 war, then why would it US always looks for its interest even threatening an ally for the killer raymond davis

 

[Solomon2]

He will be in US.

How would you feel different about the U.S. if Pakistan executes Davis, either through the judicial process or an injudicial lynching?

No body pocess that force.

I guess you don't know much about armies, then. Yes, the U.S. can mobilize the necessary force. It proved that in WWII, in 1991, and in 2003. Distance and extent don't matter when you have excellent logistics, opposing armies do. Nothing exists that could oppose American might in the Middle East, nor has since WWII.

The U.S. is not an empire. We don't collect treasure from abroad. We don't impose our legal system on other nations. We don't make decisions for other country's leaders. Wikileaks shows that what power the American ambassador has in Pakistan exists because of U.S. aid and because Pakistani politicians trust U.S. diplomats more than they trust each other. America is a powerful nation with an anti-colonial mentality so imperialism has not been in our interest, not for decades anyway.

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

How would you feel different about the U.S. if Pakistan executes Davis, either through the judicial process or an injudicial lynching?

EXECUTES.. Huh, Provided the facilitation he gets while in prison, how can your imaging such a negativity.Frankly If he does faces righteous judicial hearing , then i personally would feel like the US does mean what it says and lectures about Democracy,Rule of Law liberty bla bla in Pakistan but its not going to happen, And if he is destined for injudicial lynching then it would be sadistic as no one intented that outcome and the sole entity which would shoulder all this tragedy would be US--CIA as its responcible for sending in these incapable hired contracters who fail to maintain there defined role and end up killing innocent civilians.

I guess you don't know much about armies, then. Yes, the U.S. can mobilize the necessary force. It proved that in WWII, in 1991, and in 2003. Distance and extent don't matter when you have excellent logistics, opposing armies do. Nothing exists that could oppose American might in the Middle East, nor has since WWII.


The U.S. is not an empire. We don't collect treasure from abroad. We don't impose our legal system on other nations. We don't make decisions for other country's leaders. Wikileaks shows that what power the American ambassador has in Pakistan exists because of U.S. aid and because Pakistani politicians trust U.S. diplomats more than they trust each other. America is a powerful nation with an anti-colonial mentality so imperialism has not been in our interest, not for decades anyway.

Are you misunderstanding the definition of modren imperialism.
"If money is a science, then it is a dark science...it has gone on developing...by its own rules"

 

[53fd]

The U.S. is not an empire. We don't collect treasure from abroad. We don't impose our legal system on other nations. We don't make decisions for other country's leaders.

You are clearly out of your mind. We install & support dictatorships in other countries, such as the Shah in Iran, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Musharraf in Pakistan, Mubarak in Egypt. When we feel the dictators aren't doing enough to promote our interests, we dispose them (Saddam). We clearly do not give a crap about democracies, because we didn't support the democracy in Iran & other places. Do you remember how hard we tried to get rid off Fidel Castro? Some CIA officials even sent him "death cigars" from here. Do you remember the proposals set by the CIA known as the Operation Northwoods? Do you remember the role we played in the death of Salvador Allende of Chile? Do you know that if someone attacks US forces in Afghanistan is tried in the US? You know we created secret torture cells in Iraq, Baghram Afghanistan, and Guantanamo? Please get off your high horse and embrace the realities of the situation. What do you think of Halliburton, oil companies and other companies securing contracts in Afghanistan after we invaded their country? Aren't we collecting treasure from abroad?

 

[T-Rex]

You are clearly out of your mind. We install & support dictatorships in other countries, such as the Shah in Iran, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Musharraf in Pakistan, Mubarak in Egypt. When we feel the dictators aren't doing enough to promote our interests, we dispose them (Saddam). We clearly do not give a crap about democracies, because we didn't support the democracy in Iran & other places. Do you remember how hard we tried to get rid off Fidel Castro? Some CIA officials even sent him "death cigars" from here. Do you remember the proposals set by the CIA known as the Operation Northwoods? Do you remember the role we played in the death of Salvador Allende of Chile? Do you know that if someone attacks US forces in Afghanistan is tried in the US? You know we created secret torture cells in Iraq, Baghram Afghanistan, and Guantanamo? Please get off your high horse and embrace the realities of the situation. What do you think of Halliburton, oil companies and other companies securing contracts in Afghanistan after we invaded their country? Aren't we collecting treasure from abroad?

There might not be any reply to this from the "crusaders" for obvious reason.

 

[Solomon2]

Are you misunderstanding the definition of modren imperialism.

I consider "Modern imperialism" and similar terms inventions by third-world elites to scare their subjects with the bogeyman of imperialism. Globalization of trade and capital is NOT "imperialism".

You are clearly out of your mind. We install & support dictatorships in other countries, such as the Shah in Iran, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Musharraf in Pakistan, Mubarak in Egypt -

The U.S. had nothing to do with Mubarak's rise to power (the Muslim Brotherhood did that by assassinating his predecessor), nor did the U.S. order Musharraf to seize power in Pakistan - though it seems like a source of mental comfort for Pakistanis to believe that, yes?

we dispose them (Saddam)...Castro?...Allende...Afghanistan...[blah-blah]

These are more properly classified as U.S. enemies or opponents. The relationship the U.S. seeks is NOT one of master and slave/subordinate but between sovereign states. I do realize Pakistanis, deeply experienced with feudal and imperial rule, have trouble grasping that. It means that the U.S. isn't responsible for the decision-making of a Castro or Allende but does have to deal with it somehow. It means that the U.S. isn't responsible for the decisions of Pakistani officials but does have to find some way to deal with them. Sometimes the U.S. will respond by co-operation, sometimes bribes, sometimes war, sometimes dirty tricks, but the U.S. prefers international law and bilateral agreements.

None of these constitute imperialism or colonialism. But Pakistanis don't see it that way. It is a perceptual problem, a failure to grasp reality and history correctly: as one Pakistani once wrote to me, Pakistan is a colony rather than a country. Naturally Pakistanis resent this, not grasping that the colonial structure remained but the foreign colonial rulers are gone, replaced by their own.

That is why Davis remains in a Pakistani prison. Had this incident (a diplomat killing attempted armed robbers) happened in any other country I can think of either the offending diplomat would have been kicked out of the country within two days or he would have been allowed to continue in his duties.

The solution to Pakistan's problems isn't to be found by killing Davis. In my opinion the solution is to re-work Pakistan's very imperfect democracy. That is only going to happen when the people at the bottom wake up and demand accountability to the common citizen or at least his elected representatives; that sun be allowed to shine in every dark nook and cranny where unaccountable power is allowed to accumulate.

 

[nirreich]

Well said!

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

I consider "Modern imperialism" and similar terms inventions by third-world elites to scare their subjects with the bogeyman of imperialism. Globalization of trade and capital is NOT "imperialism".

I agree to this notion to some extent , But when you see a US ambassador micromanaging the whole state of affairs , Like even dictating the economic policies , also defending a ruthless coldblooded murderer , with every body not uttering a word against the American Mediation then it rightly constitutes American imperialism with Pakistan being its colony.How Far have we gone in our love for USA that right now Religious fundamentalism , Sectarian Voilance has gone up to such alarming levels that never existed in the Past and its prety much because of following out of the way US dictation and the Pakistan's active role in this open ended War in Afghanistan with Pakistan paying the max price and yet face the maligning global media campaign.Hell this war even took our beloved game of cricket. Thanks to the clowns following US dictation Pakistan cannot even host a single international cricket game. Not to speak of the voilance and anarchy which is gradually rising.

 

[Solomon2]

....when you see a US ambassador micromanaging the whole state of affairs , Like even dictating the economic policies....with every body not uttering a word against the American Mediation then it rightly constitutes American imperialism with Pakistan being its colony.

Don't you get it? We Americans don't go to Pakistanis to "dictate". Pakistanis, unbidden, come to us asking for help! And if we answer, "No" we are accused of "abandoning" Pakistan! Do you have suggestions what us Americans should do different?

a US ambassador...also defending a ruthless coldblooded murderer -

The ambassador doesn't have to defend Davis. All the ambassador is pointing out is that because of his immunity Davis doesn't fall under Pakistani jurisdiction.

How Far have we gone in our love for USA that right now Religious fundamentalism , Sectarian Voilance has gone up to such alarming levels that never existed in the Past -

"Never existed in the past"? I advise you to study Pakistani (and pre-partition Indian) history more carefully.

and its prety much because of following out of the way US dictation and the Pakistan's active role in this open ended War in Afghanistan with Pakistan paying the max price

I believe your ruling elite is toying with both you and the U.S. to their own personal profit. They work both sides of the street, cultivating Islamic extremism and anti-Americanism, then appearing hat-in-hand asking for money (for themselves and Pakistan) to combat both. The condition is permanent as long as ordinary Pakistanis accept it. Would you rather pay higher taxes (which you don't now because of U.S. support) or see a few of your distant relatives get blown up?

Hell this war even took our beloved game of cricket. Thanks to the clowns following US dictation Pakistan cannot even host a single international cricket game.

Sorry, cricket is totally out of my depth.

Not to speak of the voilance and anarchy which is gradually rising.

Look at your generals, MPs, ministers, and big landowners. What do they do to show they really care about such things? Go on television and blame the U.S. and Zionists? But who actually makes the decisions? THEY DO!

 

[T-Rex]

I consider "Modern imperialism" and similar terms inventions by third-world elites to scare their subjects with the bogeyman of imperialism. Globalization of trade and capital is NOT "imperialism".

There's no bogeyman greater than the so-called 'Islamic fundamentalism', on the contrary 'Modern imperialism" is real and the Iraq and Afghan wars are the latest proof of that.

The U.S. had nothing to do with Mubarak's rise to power (the Muslim Brotherhood did that by assassinating his predecessor), nor did the U.S. order Musharraf to seize power in Pakistan - though it seems like a source of mental comfort for Pakistanis to believe that, yes?

The U.S. had nothing to do with Mubarak's but it was the biggest supporter of the Mubarak regime. As for Musharraf, the US had everything to do with the removal of Nawaz Sharif which led to the rise of Musharraf.

The relationship the U.S. seeks is NOT one of master and slave/subordinate but between sovereign states

That's why it tells other states what kind of political system they should have and the consequence of not following the american advice, I suppose! We saw that in Gaza, did we not?

I do realize Pakistanis, deeply experienced with feudal and imperial rule, have trouble grasping that. It means that the U.S. isn't responsible for the decision-making of a Castro or Allende but does have to deal with it somehow. It means that the U.S. isn't responsible for the decisions of Pakistani officials but does have to find some way to deal with them. Sometimes the U.S. will respond by co-operation, sometimes bribes, sometimes war, sometimes dirty tricks, but the U.S. prefers international law and bilateral agreements.

Which is worse, a feudal lord or a corporate rule of the feudal lords of america? America is not responsible for anything, it's just that it tells its despots to run the "extra-ordinary rendition programme" for the american security.