Pakistan: Mystery of US gunman Raymond Davis continues to grow

UPDATED Feb. 21: The incident took place about eight miles from the U.S. consulate. CIA “contractor" and former Blackwater mercenary Raymond Davis was carrying loaded weapons and had a GPS satellite device in his possession. Police say Davis shot each victim five times, including in their backs, and lied to police about how he arrived at the scene. Television stations have broadcast leaked photos, allegedly recovered from Davis's cellphone and camera, that include images of bridges, markets and the road leading to the border with India. Senior State Department officials have said that Davis was not supposed to carry a weapon in Pakistan, while other U.S. officials said that he was a security contractor and did have permission to carry the weapon. Pakistani news reports have said Davis worked for the Central Intelligence Agency, but the United States has steadfastly declined to say anything beyond the fact that he works for the U.S. government. As an investigative-journalist my job is to think outside the box and ask tough questions. If I were in Pakistan I would be asking, is western intelligence covertly directing Al-Qaeda? If so, was Raymond Davis or his commanders in the Toyota (see below) spotting potential target-sites for the next Al-Qaeda bombing. Far-fetched? Perhaps, or perhaps you are too gullible. (Pakistan protestors refer to Davis as a "terrorist"). The U.S. media is doing very little with this story. On Feb. 21 the NY Times reported that Davis was acting as a reconnaissance “scout” for  covert operations in Pakistan, “part of secret war run by the CIA." Here is the BBC report from Feb. 17:

 Q & A: Lahore Shootings - Unanswered questions

Street protests

Continue reading the main story

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12491288

A court in Pakistan has delayed a hearing to decide whether an American who shot dead two men in Lahore last month has diplomatic immunity. The arrest of Raymond Davis has severely damaged relations between the countries. Much of the detail in the case remains unclear - the BBC's Syed Shoaib Hasan looks at some of the unanswered questions.

Is Raymond Davis a diplomat?

If you are thinking of a suavely dressed man in a three-piece suit who holds meetings with local officials to further or broaden his country's agenda, you would be wrong. Mr Davis was definitely not employed for his diplomatic skills - he is more a "hands-on" person, working in what the US embassy says is its "administrative and technical affairs section". Reports from the US say he is a former special forces soldier who left the military in 2003 and is working for the US embassy in Pakistan. As such, the US insists he is covered by the Vienna Convention which guarantees immunity from prosecution for all diplomatic staff.

Could he be a spy?

Many Pakistanis believe he is - there seem few other credible explanations as to why he was going around Lahore with a Glock pistol in a car with local number plates without informing local authorities. It is a requirement for embassy staff - especially those from Western embassies - to inform local police of their movements, simply because they are prime targets for militants in Pakistan. Mr Davis's department in the US embassy is widely seen in Pakistan as a cover for Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operations. Mr Davis himself said he was a consultant employed by the US government. Researchers in the US say that since leaving the military, Mr Davis worked for a security firm called Hyperion LLC. But subsequent investigations by the US media have now shown that Hyperion exists only as a website. The offices that the company says it has in Orlando have been vacant for several years and the numbers on its website are unlisted.

 Mystery man Davis 

Can Mr Davis be convicted for the murders?

Maybe. It all depends on how eager the Pakistani authorities are to punish him. The fact that he is possibly a spy does not mean he is not covered by diplomatic immunity. It is common practice for intelligence services across the world to send operatives under the cover of assignments to embassies. Both Pakistani and US "diplomats" have been caught in such situations - and every time have been asked to leave the host country immediately with no possibility of a return. That is the maximum punishment that has been levied in the overwhelming majority of cases in countries which have signed the Vienna Convention. However, in some countries there are exceptions for serious offences committed, such as murder. Pakistan is one of those countries. The matter is now in the hands of the judiciary. But it is important to remember that Mr Davis has been charged with murder - the maximum sentence here is the death penalty.

Should Mr Davis have been carrying a gun?

Legally speaking, only Pakistani citizens with licences issued by the interior ministry are allowed to carry arms. No foreigner is allowed to carry arms, except soldiers or guards within the premises of an embassy. Both Pakistani nationals and foreigners caught carrying arms can be charged under a Pakistani criminal law which stipulates a jail term of six months to two years in addition to a fine. Mr Davis has also been charged under this law.

Widow committed suicide

Was he acting in self-defense?

That was the initial plea made by Mr Davis and the US embassy. However, subsequent investigations by the police, forensic labs and the local and international media suggest that the two men were driving away from Mr Davis when they were shot. In February Lahore's police chief said that Mr Davis was guilty of "cold-blooded murder" - he said that no fingerprints had been uncovered on the triggers of the pistols found on the bodies of the two men. Furthermore he said that tests had shown that the bullets remained in the magazines of their guns, not the chambers, suggesting they weren't about to shoot him. On the face of it, this leaves Mr Davis's claim that they were robbers - with one even apparently cocking a gun at his head - looking very thin. In addition, police say ballistics evidence shows that the pair were shot in the back - which again suggests they were moving away from Mr Davis, rather than about to attack him.

Who were the Pakistanis that Mr Davis shot?

In his initial statement, Mr Davis said they were robbers who were trying to steal his valuables. He and the US embassy have maintained this story. However, the men have no criminal records as such. Both have been identified as residents of Lahore by the police. The pair were carrying licensed pistols - a fact which led many to believe they might indeed have been robbers. However, security sources in Lahore say that they were part-time or low-level operatives for the local intelligence services. Although reports are sketchy about what they were doing in relation to Mr Davis, security officials believe it could be the case of a surveillance operation gone horribly wrong. Pakistani intelligence services routinely tail and monitor all embassy staff, Western or otherwise.

 Victim of Toyota driver

What about the second car and its victim?

A side event to the main drama concerning Mr Davis was the fact a third man was also killed during the incident. He was an innocent bystander run over by a US embassy vehicle, which was initially said to have arrived to rescue Mr Davis. The fact that an embassy vehicle was able to get to the spot so quickly was a source of astonishment to anyone who is even vaguely aware of the geography of Lahore. Given the incident was over within minutes, it seems incredible that anyone could negotiate the 12km (7.4-mile) 40-minute drive in peak traffic in less than five minutes. But subsequent investigations have now shown that the second car - a Toyota Landcruiser - was with Mr Davis at the time of the incident. In fact, according to eyewitnesses, Mr Davis was leading and clearing the way for the Toyota when the incident took place. In the light of what happened afterwards, it seems Mr Davis was in "protective mode" and opened fire to "secure" whoever or whatever was in the Toyota - the interior of this vehicle was not visible as its windows were tinted. It is evident in local TV footage that the second vehicle is going away from Mr Davis at the time of the incident. As it disappears into the dust, Mr Davis calmly pulls over and gives himself up. Pakistani authorities have asked for the Landcruiser and its driver to be handed over - a request with which the US has yet to comply.

What about behind-the-scenes negotiations?

As well as public pressure, US officials have also privately warned Pakistan's government of far-reaching and severe consequences if Mr Davis is convicted. Unnamed US officials have also used the media to issue veiled warnings to Pakistan that diplomatic ties could be cut and all aid stopped. Despite Islamabad's public stance on Mr Davis, Pakistani officials are said to have privately assured Washington that he will eventually be released. However, public pressure means that at the moment this could lead to a massive anti-government backlash. Pakistan's Prime Minister, Yousuf Raza Gilani, has hinted that blood money could be paid to the families of the two men Mr Davis admits shooting, which could enable his release. There is speculation that US officials may try to establish contacts with the families in this regard. However, it is not clear that Mr Davis has been charged under laws which would allow blood money to be paid. 

***

More evidence that George W. Bush lied America into the Iraq war

Iraqi Says He Made Up Tale of Biological Weapons Before War

By James Risen | New York Times | Feb. 15, 2011

with an Afterword by Michael Hoffman

WASHINGTON — The Iraqi defector whose claims that Saddam Hussein’s government had biological weapons became part of the Bush administration’s justification for the 2003 invasion of Iraq has admitted that he fabricated his story.

The defector, Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, who was code-named “Curveball” by the Central Intelligence Agency and German intelligence officials, told the British newspaper The Guardian on Tuesday (Feb. 14) that he had concocted his tale that Iraq was hiding mobile bioweapons laboratories. He did so, he said, in hopes that his lies would lead to the eventual overthrow of the Iraqi ruler.

“I had the chance to fabricate something to topple the regime,” Mr. Janabi told the newspaper. “I and my sons are proud of that, and we are proud that we were the reason to give Iraq the margin of democracy.”

Mr. Janabi, who lives in Germany, has given several interviews in the past, but until now has always denied that he had lied to his intelligence handlers before the war in Iraq, even though his information had long been discredited.

The strange case of “Curveball” has become one of the most infamous episodes in the Bush administration’s case for war. Mr. Janabi’s claim about the mobile laboratories was featured prominently in Secretary of State Colin L. Powell’s address to the United Nations in February 2003, when he laid out the administration’s case that Mr. Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction.

The United States invaded Iraq in March 2003, and eventually determined that Iraq did not have any such weapons. It later became clear that the Bush administration had relied heavily on bogus information from unreliable exiles like Mr. Janabi.

Even before the invasion, there was strong evidence that Mr. Janabi was an unreliable source, evidence which critics now say the Bush White House and the C.I.A.’s top leadership ignored.

Mr. Janabi, who defected to Germany in the 1990s, met repeatedly with German intelligence officials beginning in 2000. They refused to allow C.I.A. officials to meet directly with him, instead providing the Americans only with reports of what he had said. Eventually, though, the Germans grew doubtful of their informer and passed on their suspicions to American intelligence officials. Mr. Janabi said in his interview with The Guardian that he still believed that it was right for him to lie, because it was the only way to rid Iraq of Mr. Hussein. In an interview conducted in German and translated by The Guardian, he said: “Believe me, there was no other way to bring about freedom to Iraq. There were no other possibilities.” (End quote; emphasis supplied)

***

Hoffman’s Afterword: Bush and Powell are laughing all the way to the bank. Their cushy retirements are not under any kind of prosecutorial threat as a result of the cascade of revelations concerning the lies they (and Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest of the neocon cabal from William Kristol to Jeffrey Goldberg), retailed to the American people to persuade us to approve the American war on a sovereign nation. 

The Cryptocracy uses what James Shelby Downard termed "cryonic revelation" — freeze the truth at the time of the crime and then thaw it later, when the “hurly-burly’s done” and the “battle’s lost and won.” 

From the admission by Alwan al-Janabi,  and other testimony, we now know that the George W. Bush administration fabricated the story of weapons of mass destruction. America was not threatened by Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of dead people and more than a trillion dollars in US taxpayer funds later, and Mr. Bush is at his ease; his father just having received the “Medal of Freedom” from President Obama. It is this kind of immunity, accompanied by the occult nose-thumbing at the American people, about to lose their Social Security and Medicaid due to needless, wastrel foreign wars, that is the hallmark of the pharaohs who lord it over us without fear of being brought to justice. Where are the mass protests in the streets? The Republicans chatter about "fidelity to the Constitution.” What was Constitutional about the undeclared war on Iraq?...My country ’tis of thee, sweet land of felony.

***

Al Qaeda’s massacre of Christians in Iraq was timed to help Israelis

Editor’s note: Someday, probably far in the future, there will be a public revelation in the corporate media that "Al Qaeda” is a false flag operation, created, shepherded, and managed at the top, by certain western intelligence agencies.

*****

Al-Qaeda’s Christian Massacre: Aiding and Abetting the Occupation of Palestine

by Maidhc Ó Cathail / Dissident Voice | November 20th, 2010

If we are to believe the voice on those Osama bin Laden tapes, the elusive al-Qaeda leader cares deeply about Palestine. Yet the actions of the terrorist network he supposedly still directs all too often belie its statements of concern for their “brothers” under Israeli occupation.

The massacre of Iraqi Christians at Our Lady of Salvation Church in Baghdad also makes one wonder about claims that the group has “a great sense of timing.” The slaughter of Catholic Mass-goers occurred just one week after church leaders from across the Middle East had forcefully condemned Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories.

More than 200 members of 14 different churches had gathered in Rome for a papal synod to address concerns about Christian emigration from the region. However, as one commentator observed, “Time and again, they turned the discussions … towards the Palestinian question.”

In their final communiqué, the bishops urged the international community to apply UN Security Council resolutions and take “the necessary legal steps to put an end to the occupation of the different Arab territories.” Significantly, they charged the Israeli occupation with causing tensions that have led to the exodus of Christians from the Middle East.

In a follow-up news conference, the archbishop in charge of the committee that drafted the communiqué, Cyrille Salim Bustros, rejected any biblical justification for the Zionist project. “The concept of the promised land cannot be used as a base for the justification of the return of Jews to Israel and the displacement of Palestinians,” he said. “Sacred scripture should not be used to justify the occupation by Israel of Palestine.”

Not surprisingly, Tel Aviv was none too pleased with this serious challenge to the legitimacy of the self-described Jewish state. The following day, Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon issued a statement condemning the bishops. The synod, he said, had been “hijacked by an anti-Israel majority,” turning it into “a forum for political attacks on Israel in the best history of Arab propaganda.” In particular, his government was “appalled” by Archbishop Bustros’ “outrageous comments,” describing them as “a libel against the Jewish people and the State of Israel.”

One week later, the Anti-Defamation League sought to enlist Pope Benedict XVI to Israel’s side. Expressing condolences over the Baghdad killings, ADL leaders asked the pope to “join together to eliminate all terrorism in the name of religion” and “to use the Church’s moral authority to prevent Israel from being made a pariah by its enemies.”

But with the Israeli occupation under such censure from Rome, it was a rather odd time for avowed supporters of the Palestinian cause to slaughter Catholics in the Middle East. Indeed, many Iraqi Muslims harbour “suspicions” about the shadowy al-Qaeda front’s targeting of “essentially non-players” in the country’s post-invasion sectarian strife.

Indeed, if anyone benefited from the church massacre it was Israel. Reminiscent of the Zionist underground’s attacks on Iraqi Jews in the 1950s, this assault on the Christian minority was clearly designed to encourage them to flee the country where they had lived in relative peace and prosperity for two millennia.

The removal of a Christian presence from the Muslim-dominated region would eliminate the model of coexistence as a viable alternative to the “clash of civilizations” view of the world. “By focusing attention on a direct and eternal conflict between the West and Islam,” M. Shahid Alam argues in his new book, the clash thesis aims “to acquit Israel of serving as the chief source and conduit of this conflict.”

Moreover, the massacre lent plausibility to the Israeli narrative on why Christians are leaving the Middle East. In a 2006 report by the hawkishly pro-Israel Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, titled “The Christian Exodus from the Middle East,” senior fellows Jonathan Adelman and Agota Kuperman concluded: “The single greatest cause of this emigration is radical Islam.”

Ironically, it was a representative from Baghdad at the synod who had suggested a way to encourage Middle East emigrants to return to Palestine. Armenian Archbishop Emmanuel Dabbaghian proposed that every bishop should make an annual visit to the Holy Land. “The influx of pilgrims to the Holy Land,” he said, “would convince the inhabitants who have emigrated to return to their homeland.” Given the apprehension about “the Arab demographic threat,” such a development would be viewed with trepidation in Tel Aviv.

“Israel, the Jewish State, is predicated on a decisive and stable Jewish majority of at least 70 percent,” Michael Oren, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, wrote in a 2009 article in Commentary magazine. “Any lower than that and Israel will have to decide between being a Jewish state and a democratic state.” Still, it’s an improvement on the “at least 80 percent Jews” that David Ben-Gurion said would be necessary for “a viable and stable state” on the eve of the premeditated ethnic cleansing of Palestinian Muslims and Christians.

In contrast to al-Qaeda’s efforts to drive a wedge between Islam and Christianity, the solidarity between the world’s two largest religions in Palestine poses a real threat to the Israeli occupation.
Sabeel, an ecumenical grassroots liberation theology movement among Palestinian Christians, in its “Jerusalem Declaration on Christian Zionism,” affirms “that Palestinians are one people, both Muslim and Christian” and rejects “all attempts to subvert and fragment their unity.”

Couldn’t the Baghdad church massacre also be seen as an attempt to “subvert and fragment” Palestinian unity? With “brothers” like al-Qaeda, who needs enemies?

*****