This blog explores the contemporary political and cultural trends from a distinct perspective
The case against diplomatic immunity
Published on February 9, 2011 By Bahu Virupaksha In Current Events

The mainstream Ameican Press has been covering the Raymond Davis shooting episode from just one side. I would like to present the facts as they are on the ground.

US presence in Pakistan is deeply resented as the unmitigated drone attacks (I have already written about it) has caused widespread collateral damage. Of course, there has been as odd success against a militant or two, but the vast amjority of those killed are just innocent women and children. In fact the state of Pakistan is likely to implode because of American presence. Given the security concerens, the uS Defence Department and the State Department have been recruiting men to serve as adjunct to the US Army so that deniability can be maintained. Zardari can pretend that US Army is not operating from his territory, as the US might is essentially represented by private security agencies with a contractual relationship with the US Defence Department. The question of diplomatic immunity to contract workers of the US defence department does not arise as International Law recognises only accredited diplomats as possessing diplomaticimmunity and that too in cases concerning their jobs/ responsiblities as diplomats. It is stretching the point to far to say that diplomats have the right to kill citizens of the land in which they are posted. Even heads of states are pubnished for crimes committed in their opfficial capacity. Having said all this let me move on to the case under discussion.

On January 27th 2011, Raymond Davis shot and killed two men on a road near Lahore. He did not have any identiry card with him and his gun was an unlicenced one making him crime all the more serious. The US state department is putting pressure on the Pakistani Government to go slow on the investigation claiming that Raymaond Davis enjoys diplomatic immunity. This argument has been rejected by the Rawalpindi regime.. After killing the two men, Raymand Davis fled and the car sent to provide armed support to his escape killed one more. So all in all three Pakistanis were killed and the wife of one of the men killed by Davis killed herself yesterday.

The facts of the case get a lot more complicated from this point onwards. The US press has not brought out the fact that an unlicenced Ak 47 was recovered from one of the men killed. It is likely that had Davis not dhot them first, he would have been shot. How does one establish this plea in a Pakistani court. Another point: the man whose wife killed hwerself is known as a criminal and had a history of violence behind him. These are facts. However, the car ion which Mr Raymond Davis was travelling bore a fke diplomatic licence plate and number raising suspicions about his true purpose and intent.

This incident is spiralling out of control and I think the Pakistani courts will eventually release Raymond Davis provided the US State Govedrnment shows more finess in handling this sensitive issue.

I personally feel that Raymond Davis was operating on the asumption that the two thugs following him were intent on killing him nad therfore acted in self defence. He was a good shot so like Rambo put the bullet right in the middle of the forehead and he fired from a moving car.

 


Comments
on Feb 09, 2011

I would like to present the facts as they are on the ground.

US presence in Pakistan is deeply resented

Do not present "facts" and then give your opinion.  Your opinion may be valid, but it is hardly a fact.

on Feb 09, 2011

Interesting story, now can you provide proof of these facts? Or am I suppose to take your word of this being fact? Sure I could search the Internet for proof but since you are the one claiming to "present" the facts, hows about presenting links to these facts while you're at it. Then maybe I can give a decent reply.

 

on Feb 09, 2011

BTW, Rambo was not a sharp shooter, he did more of a spray and pray attack.

on Feb 11, 2011

Unless you can prove Davis went out looking for someone to shoot, IMO the "Rambo" reference was uncalled for and really added nothing to your article. It's a reference the American far left uses regularly to emphasize their disdain when ever another American, preferably a conservative or someone on the right, takes action to defend themselves on a personal level or the nation on a national level.

As far as the story goes, from the info I have heard, the Pakistanis should be giving this guy a medal for help taking out their trash.

on Feb 13, 2011

I think you did not quite understand what I said. I have clearly said (1) the two men shot carried unlicenced weapons--an AK-47 and a sub machine gun. One of them was a known criminal and I have also said that Raymond Davis can legitimately claim self defence and I ended with some enny for his ability to shoot straight from a moving car and spot on just the two with a single shot.

I can say that Raymand will be released after the so called independent judiciary in Pakistan makes some heroic noises and the US State Department should just be quiet and not make offensive statements. In fact the Raymond Issue has cost Mr Qureshi, the Foreign Minister, his job.

on Feb 27, 2011

Raymond Davis apparently works for the CIA and he deserves to be defended.

on Mar 20, 2011

I can say that Raymand will be released after the so called independent judiciary in Pakistan makes some heroic noises and the US State Department should just be quiet and not make offensive statements. In fact the Raymond Issue has cost Mr Qureshi, the Foreign Minister, his job

 

JUST AS I PREDICTED MR. RAYMOND DAVIS WALKED FREE. IT SEEMS THE STATE DEPARTMENT JUST KEPT QUIET AND LET THE SO CALLED DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT OF ZARDARI DO ITS BIT.