According to 'lil' George "W" the story about Raymond Davis has been "Spun to a Fare-thee-Well"
by the Dept. of State. George has been reporting on Hillary for almost 10 years and he advises checking out every damn thing she says for accuracy because the truth usually comes out months later. In this case George had to actually read the "Vienna Convention" which he thought was classical music.
Since the Wikileaks came out George "W" has been reading the Guardian and he came up with this article about Ray Davis. This CIA Agent is No Diplomat
The US says Raymond Davis should have immunity in Pakistan. Just another attempt to flout the rule of law outside its borders
By Craig Murray
February 28, 2011 "The Guardian" -- I tread with some caution in discussing the case of Raymond Davis, the CIA agent facing charges of double murder in Pakistan and the threat of the death penalty. I add my plea to the voices urging the Pakistani government to ensure Davis does not hang.
HERE ARE THE RELEVANT DETAILS THAT WERE "MUDDIED" BY THE OFFICIAL STATEMENTS REGARDING DAVIS' DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY.
Full diplomatic immunity is enjoyed only by "diplomatic agents". Those are defined at article 1 (e) of the Vienna convention as "the head of the mission or a member of the diplomatic staff of the mission". Helpfully the diplomatic staff are further defined in the preceding article as "having diplomatic rank". Those ranks are an ascending series of concrete titles from third secretary through to ambassador or high commissioner. Davis did not have a diplomatic rank.
But there is a second category of "administrative and technical staff" of a mission. They enjoy a limited diplomatic immunity which, however, specifically excludes "acts performed outside the course of their duties". (Vienna convention article 37/2.) Frantic off-the-record briefing by the state department reflected widely in the media indicates that the US case is that Davis was a member of technical staff covered by this provision.
But in that case the US has to explain in the course of precisely which diplomatic duties Davis needed to carry a Glock handgun, a headband-mounted flashlight and a pocket telescope. The Vienna convention lists the legitimate duties of an embassy, and none of them need that kind of equipment.
It appears in any event unlikely that Davis ever was a member of the technical staff of the embassy or consulate. Under article 10 of the Vienna convention the host authorities must be formally informed – by diplomatic note – of the arrival and departures of such staff, and as embassies under article 11 are subject to agreed numerical limits, that in practice occurs when another member of staff is leaving. If this was not done Davis was not covered even in the course of his duties.
Pakistani senior ex-military sources tell me there is no note appointing Davis as embassy or consulate staff, and that appears to pass a commonsense test – if the note exists, why have the Americans not produced it? I told George that we need to consult a professional on this question...
Like the SKEPTICAL BUREAUCRAT! He can probably find that note around the office someplace! ??
At least I thought this evaluation was the most enlightening I've seen. Dan
Nice cat!
ReplyDeleteRe Davis and his 'administrative and technical staf' status, there is considerable case law that defines "duties" as including pretty much every kind of activity outside the office, including driving about. In fact, we had another U.S. diplomat in Pakistan last year who killed a person in a driving accident, and he was routinely released from custody and expelled from the country. Responding with lethal force to a perceived assassination attempt (it turned out to be merely an armed robbery, but Davis couldn't have known that) is easily within the scope of his "duties."
The Embassy did indeed sent a dip note to notify the Foreign Office. Dawn even published it a couple weeks ago, along with quotes from FO sources about how they did not reply with a note of disagreement. I'm surprised the author didn't know that, but maybe he needs to find better sources.
Davis having a pistol must come as a shock to the Brits. It does not shock anyone else, I think, because the fact is that Pakistan has surrendered control of large parts of its country to al Qaeda and the Taliban. When the host country can't provide a reasonably secure environment for U.S. personnel or missions (as witness the many attacks on our facilities in Pakistan), we are forced to provide for our own protection. U.S mission personnel don't carry weapons in, say, The Netherlands and Japan, but in Pakistan they sometimes do.
GWB: I think what you say is all true, but why can't he produce what the courts are asking for?
ReplyDelete