regulator 0 #1 February 1, 2011 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41363733/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/ LAHORE, Pakistan — A Pakistani court ordered the government Tuesday not to release an American official arrested in the shooting deaths of two Pakistanis despite U.S. insistence that he has diplomatic immunity and has been detained illegally. Lahore High Court Chief Justice Ijaz Chaudhry also told the government to place the American on the "exit control list" so that he cannot leave the country. Some legal experts questioned whether the court had the authority to issue such orders, but the rulings could further complicate what has become a serious diplomatic spat between the two countries. The U.S. Embassy in Islamabad has argued that the American, who it has not named, acted in self-defense when he shot the two men in Lahore last Thursday because they were trying to rob him at gunpoint. It has issued several statements insisting he has diplomatic immunity and demanding he be released. A copy of the American's passport obtained by The Associated Press identifies him as 36-year-old Raymond Allen Davis. Pakistani officials have seemingly gone out of their way to avoid taking responsibility for deciding whether Davis should be released, likely because of possible backlash in a country where anti-American sentiment is rife despite billions of dollars in U.S. aid. When asked whether the American has diplomatic immunity, federal government officials, including the president and the prime minister, have said they must wait until provincial legal officials finish their review — or have pointed their fingers at other federal ministries that must decide. Protesters converged on the heart of Cairo in droves Tuesday, responding to a call for a million Egyptians to unite in the largest protest in a week of unceasing demands for President Hosni Mubarak to leave. Full story ..Local officials in Punjab province, where Lahore is the capital, have said it is up to the federal government, not provincial authorities, to decide whether Davis has diplomatic immunity. If not, provincial prosecutors have said they will pursue murder charges. .The national and provincial governments are controlled by rival political parties, and Davis' case could be caught up in this competition. Chaudhry, the chief justice, demanded that the federal government determine whether the American has diplomatic immunity within 15 days and said he would review the final decision himself. But Azhar Sadique, a senior constitutional lawyer, said the court was overreaching — behavior for which it has been criticized in the past. "As far as the issue of diplomatic immunity is concerned, this issue must be decided by the two (national) governments or by the international court of justice," said Sadique. Despite the questionable jurisdiction, Punjab's deputy attorney general, Naveed Malik, said before the ruling that the provincial government would accept any decision by the Lahore High Court about Davis. The court issued its rulings after hearing a petition from a local lawyer who feared Pakistan would release the American as a result of U.S. pressure. A third man died when he was allegedly hit by an American car that rushed to the scene to help Davis. Pakistani police have said they want to question the driver of that vehicle as well. Many Pakistanis already regard the U.S. with suspicion or enmity because of its occupation of neighboring Afghanistan and regular missile attacks against militant targets in Pakistan's northwest. Islamist and rightwing opponents of Washington and the U.S.-allied government here have said the recent shooting was a further example of American brutality. The U.S. has said Davis was a member of the embassy's technical and administrative staff but has not clearly identified his job or explained why he was carrying a gun. The lack of clarity has fueled media speculation that he may be a CIA agent or security contractor and raised questions about whether he qualified for diplomatic immunity. Washington has made strengthening ties with Pakistan a top priority and is committed to giving it $7.5 billion dollars in civilian aid, one of its largest programs anywhere in the world. It wants to secure the country's help in stabilizing Afghanistan by attacking militant sanctuaries on its side of the border. But the relationship between the two countries has often been strained by Pakistan's reluctance to carry out operations against key Afghan militants demanded by the U.S. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,594 #2 February 1, 2011 If you're going to just quote an entire news story without providing any original comment you could at least have the decency to correct the formatting...Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
regulator 0 #3 February 1, 2011 and if youre going to reply to the original post you could have something relevant to the topic rather than a lame attempt at bashing the OP. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,594 #4 February 1, 2011 With the amount of time you spent writing that snarky put down you could have edited out all the redundant photo captions, dead links and sub-headers and ended up with a coherent OP. It's just simple forum courtesy. Oh well, I guess we know where your priorities lie.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
regulator 0 #5 February 1, 2011 You are totally right...the whole ten seconds I took to write the reply I could have done that. But formatting the post just to make you happy? Definately NOT my priority. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,594 #6 February 1, 2011 No, to make it readable. I assume you posted it because you wanted people to read it, you might find you get better results if you take that ten seconds to make sure you're not posting stuff that looks like a word processor threw up. Simple advice about the simple courtesies that'll make your future threads more successful. No need to get your delicate little feelings all hurt.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
regulator 0 #7 February 1, 2011 QuoteNo, to make it readable. I assume you posted it because you wanted people to read it, you might find you get better results if you take that ten seconds to make sure you're not posting stuff that looks like a word processor threw up. Simple advice about the simple courtesies that'll make your future threads more successful. No need to get your delicate little feelings all hurt.[/reply---------------------------------------------------------- don't flatter yourself...you arent worthy of getting under my skin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Coreece 190 #8 February 2, 2011 This thread sucks! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiXNUaSjXRY Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,594 #9 February 2, 2011 Quotedon't flatter yourself...you arent worthy of getting under my skin Well, the simple fact you're thinking about it in terms of getting under your skin kinda says otherwise. Not exactly sure why you have such an allergic reaction to receiving advice?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Coreece 190 #10 February 2, 2011 QuoteNot exactly sure why you have such an allergic reaction to receiving advice? Maybe it has to do with how you give advice? Though I do agree with your comment about "posting stuff that looks like a word processor threw up," I don't think that calling somebody indecent is the most practical form of constructive criticism.Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites regulator 0 #11 February 2, 2011 WOW! I been working all day long without power due to 'rolling power outages' throughout the houston area. I thought this thread would be at the bottom of the pile, but yet you still can't give up on this? Perhaps a SINGLE comment about the loss of diplomatic immunity of an american in Palestine? You keep rambling on and on about the thread not being formatted to your liking yet you have not added a SINGLE comment regarding what I posted but yet you continue to try to bash me over and over again because you seem to have nothing better to do with your time other than attempt to berate others. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #12 February 22, 2011 This has become, in my mind, a giant shit storm. You think Wikileaks damaged US credibility abroad, I don't think it's got much on this story. This guy was not a diplomat. There is speculation that he was: (1) CIA; (2) a hired gun for CIA; (3) Special Forces; or (4) outright terrorist. Further news is now being revealed (more on that down below). Homey didn't kill a couple of robbers in self-defense - he killed a couple of Pakstani intelligence agents who were trailing whom they believed to be a spy. And they found some serious shit with the guy - photos of schools, lots of firearms, etc. The US Government has been saying this guy is a diplomat. An outight lie. A week ago, the President said that Pakistan should follow the Vienna Convention and expel him as a diplomat. Even while the President was making this speech, news services knew what was going on and CONCEALED it. The Guardian reported that American news outlets, "at the request of the Obama administration" put forth the phoney information. Check this shit out - The New York Times wrote today, "On Monday, American officials lifted their request to withhold publication." - http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/world/asia/22pakistan.html?_r=3&emc=na So there was a spook who killed Pakistani agents. The American government (including the POTUS, the CIA (Leon Panetta (whom I have ALWAYS viewed as stand up)), the Joint Chiefs, and even the Senate (Sen. Graham made a floor speech that, at the very least, called him an "agent" and Sen Kerry who went there to broker a deal for the "diplomat"), with the willingness of the press, put out lies to the world and even our allies. Yeah, it sucks that we've got an American agent in trouble but it's the nature of the business. But to actually have the press so complicit in this is friggin incredibe. It's a disgrace. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,146 #13 February 22, 2011 Governments lie? Oh the humanity!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #14 February 22, 2011 Yep. Trust the government. Nothing changes, John. Right, left, Republican, Democrat - all in on it. And just as bad is the press. Sure, the government requested that they not publish the facts. So the press decided not only to honor the request but to help the US Government put out phoney spins and propoganda. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,584 #15 February 22, 2011 Good post. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wayneflorida 0 #16 February 22, 2011 Quote Governments lie? Oh the humanity! I might add. The Press lies? Oh the humanity. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Southern_Man 0 #17 February 22, 2011 Quote Sure, the government requested that they not publish the facts. So the press decided not only to honor the request but to help the US Government put out phoney spins and propoganda. Yep, one of the reasons I am not at all upset about Wikileaks. They are not complicit with the government."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #18 February 22, 2011 Yeah, the guy appears to be former special forces, now working for or contracted to the CIA. OK, let's assume he is. If he went in with diplomatic immunity, shouldn't he still have it, regardless? Once the US notified the Pakistani government, do they really get to decide after he fact that no, they really don't want to offer him DI? And with hints that they knew he as working with CIA assets in the area, it sounds like he got close to something the ISI wasn't interested in having uncovered. Complicit much? Playing both sides against the middle? Just found an article that the US is taking that stance, at least. http://m.timesofindia.com/world/us/CIA-or-not-Davis-still-has-immunity-says-US/articleshow/7552383.cms I swear I am so sick of hearing about problems like this in shithole countries. Does the US gain anything from throwing money material and loves into supporting corrupt little despots? It's not like the Pakis are supporting the military efforts against "terrorists." they don't want drones flying, they don't want military forces to chase enemies across twit frontier, and they won't handle it themselves. If you look at what's coming out, the CIA had to set up parallel efforts to track militants because the ISIcouldnt or wouldn't donut themselves, and the CIA couldn't trust them to even know about it. Another article, this one from NPR and containing the view of a local that doesn't support the US. (I'll stop short of "anti-American) http://m.npr.org/story/133962907?url=/2011/02/22/133962907/americans-cia-ties-imperil-pakistan-cooperationwitty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #19 February 22, 2011 QuoteOf he went in with diplomatic immunity, shouldn't he still have it, regardless? Once the US notified Just found an article that the US is taking that stance, at least. http://m.timesofindia.com/...icleshow/7552383.cms A fine assumption to make. There are problems, however, and these problems are all the more obvious because of the handling of this issue from the start. The first problem is that simply calling someone a diplomat doesn't mean that the person is a diplomat. Everyone knows it. The second problem is caused by the handling. The technique works in a court of law but not in a court of public opinion - "throw everything against the wall and see what sticks." It is now KNOWN that the government asked the press not to say what the true facts are, meaning that the US government had something to hide and put forth falsities. Now they can't be trusted. Had the US simply taken the track of, "Here's what he is, but he still gets immunity" then the chances would be stronger. But the US did not - the government called him a "diplomat" when he wasn't a diplomat. "So you lied and called him a 'diplomat?' Now you say he isn't but is entitled to 'diplomatic immunity?'" What's next? Try to keep him off the gallows by calling him an enemy prisoner of war? This is why the dishonesty is such a fuck up. It ruins credibility down the line. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #20 February 22, 2011 (sorry about the incomplete post, I'm on my phone) From the first link in my previous post: QuoteSoon after, the US State Department wheeled out one of its "foremost experts in international law" to make the case that regardless of Davis' reported affiliation, he was entitled to diplomatic immunity because the US had clearly intimated to the Pakistani government that he is a member of the administrative and technical staff under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Sources also indicated that Pakistan had been told he is an intelligence operative working undercover and Islamabad was aware of it. "From that point, he enjoyed the status as a member of the staff of the mission. He enjoyed privileges and immunities against local criminal law, including inviolability of person, inviolability from arrest and detention, immunity from criminal jurisdiction. He has those privileges and immunities, and he continues to enjoy them," the expert, a senior administration official, told journalists in a conference call. We all know lawyers can take any simple sentence and argue that it means three distinct and opposing ideas. That not what interests me. The whole point is he went in with DI. He was announced to the Pakis. He expected DI. The Pakis knew who he was and could keep tabs on him. That's why black hat no-cover spooks don't go in as part of the embassy staff. Taking those protections makes them easier to track. If the US sends him in and tells the Pakis they expect DI, and the Pakis don't reject him, how do they get to up and decide that nah, they're not going to give it to him based on what he did. The entire concept of DI is to prevent that. He came in with DI. You dint like it, tag him persona non grata and expel him. The Pakis are as wrong as the US here. The US just looks bad for trying to hide that he was working with, for, or as a spook.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #21 February 22, 2011 QuoteUS had clearly intimated Do you see the problem with the bolded words when used together? This is defense attorney politician spin to a tee. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites popsjumper 2 #22 February 23, 2011 QuoteQuoteUS had clearly intimated Do you see the problem with the bolded words when used together? This is defense attorney politician spin to a tee. I see just one more case of our goobermint trying to sneak a high-hard one past us.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #23 February 23, 2011 Oh I completely agree that he sounds like snakily little defense liar. But, as inonxe heard abjudge quip after too many gin and tonics, "Just because he's a greasy little amoral jerk of a defense liar, that doesn't mean he's wrong." Yes, the Feds look like jackasses, and the Pakis are acting like opportunistic douche bags, but that doesn't answer the question of whether or not he had DI. I don't know the Vienna Conventions that well. If a person is sent into a country under the umbrella of DI, does the foreign country get to claim it doesn't apply? (short of a home country waiving DI)witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wolfriverjoe 1,523 #24 February 23, 2011 QuoteOh I completely agree that he sounds like snakily little defense liar. But, as inonxe heard abjudge quip after too many gin and tonics, "Just because he's a greasy little amoral jerk of a defense liar, that doesn't mean he's wrong." Yes, the Feds look like jackasses, and the Pakis are acting like opportunistic douche bags, but that doesn't answer the question of whether or not he had DI. I don't know the Vienna Conventions that well. If a person is sent into a country under the umbrella of DI, does the foreign country get to claim it doesn't apply? (short of a home country waiving DI) To the best of my knowledge, no. DI is immunity. The host country can PNG them and kick them out, or refuse to allow them to enter, but once they are in and credentialed, they have it. Anybody else remember the Russian (Or maybe Soviet but I think it was after that) diplomat who killed the girl while driving drunk? He had DI and was quite possibly going to simply go home until the home country waived it because of all the publicity. There have been others, some involving drug smuggling IIRC, but I don't remember the specifics of any at the moment."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #25 February 23, 2011 The list of foreign diplomats doing some seriously fucked up shit in and around New York and Washington and getting way with it due to DI is EXCEEDINGLY long Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Coreece 190 #8 February 2, 2011 This thread sucks! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiXNUaSjXRY Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,594 #9 February 2, 2011 Quotedon't flatter yourself...you arent worthy of getting under my skin Well, the simple fact you're thinking about it in terms of getting under your skin kinda says otherwise. Not exactly sure why you have such an allergic reaction to receiving advice?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #10 February 2, 2011 QuoteNot exactly sure why you have such an allergic reaction to receiving advice? Maybe it has to do with how you give advice? Though I do agree with your comment about "posting stuff that looks like a word processor threw up," I don't think that calling somebody indecent is the most practical form of constructive criticism.Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
regulator 0 #11 February 2, 2011 WOW! I been working all day long without power due to 'rolling power outages' throughout the houston area. I thought this thread would be at the bottom of the pile, but yet you still can't give up on this? Perhaps a SINGLE comment about the loss of diplomatic immunity of an american in Palestine? You keep rambling on and on about the thread not being formatted to your liking yet you have not added a SINGLE comment regarding what I posted but yet you continue to try to bash me over and over again because you seem to have nothing better to do with your time other than attempt to berate others. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #12 February 22, 2011 This has become, in my mind, a giant shit storm. You think Wikileaks damaged US credibility abroad, I don't think it's got much on this story. This guy was not a diplomat. There is speculation that he was: (1) CIA; (2) a hired gun for CIA; (3) Special Forces; or (4) outright terrorist. Further news is now being revealed (more on that down below). Homey didn't kill a couple of robbers in self-defense - he killed a couple of Pakstani intelligence agents who were trailing whom they believed to be a spy. And they found some serious shit with the guy - photos of schools, lots of firearms, etc. The US Government has been saying this guy is a diplomat. An outight lie. A week ago, the President said that Pakistan should follow the Vienna Convention and expel him as a diplomat. Even while the President was making this speech, news services knew what was going on and CONCEALED it. The Guardian reported that American news outlets, "at the request of the Obama administration" put forth the phoney information. Check this shit out - The New York Times wrote today, "On Monday, American officials lifted their request to withhold publication." - http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/world/asia/22pakistan.html?_r=3&emc=na So there was a spook who killed Pakistani agents. The American government (including the POTUS, the CIA (Leon Panetta (whom I have ALWAYS viewed as stand up)), the Joint Chiefs, and even the Senate (Sen. Graham made a floor speech that, at the very least, called him an "agent" and Sen Kerry who went there to broker a deal for the "diplomat"), with the willingness of the press, put out lies to the world and even our allies. Yeah, it sucks that we've got an American agent in trouble but it's the nature of the business. But to actually have the press so complicit in this is friggin incredibe. It's a disgrace. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #13 February 22, 2011 Governments lie? Oh the humanity!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #14 February 22, 2011 Yep. Trust the government. Nothing changes, John. Right, left, Republican, Democrat - all in on it. And just as bad is the press. Sure, the government requested that they not publish the facts. So the press decided not only to honor the request but to help the US Government put out phoney spins and propoganda. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,584 #15 February 22, 2011 Good post. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wayneflorida 0 #16 February 22, 2011 Quote Governments lie? Oh the humanity! I might add. The Press lies? Oh the humanity. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #17 February 22, 2011 Quote Sure, the government requested that they not publish the facts. So the press decided not only to honor the request but to help the US Government put out phoney spins and propoganda. Yep, one of the reasons I am not at all upset about Wikileaks. They are not complicit with the government."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #18 February 22, 2011 Yeah, the guy appears to be former special forces, now working for or contracted to the CIA. OK, let's assume he is. If he went in with diplomatic immunity, shouldn't he still have it, regardless? Once the US notified the Pakistani government, do they really get to decide after he fact that no, they really don't want to offer him DI? And with hints that they knew he as working with CIA assets in the area, it sounds like he got close to something the ISI wasn't interested in having uncovered. Complicit much? Playing both sides against the middle? Just found an article that the US is taking that stance, at least. http://m.timesofindia.com/world/us/CIA-or-not-Davis-still-has-immunity-says-US/articleshow/7552383.cms I swear I am so sick of hearing about problems like this in shithole countries. Does the US gain anything from throwing money material and loves into supporting corrupt little despots? It's not like the Pakis are supporting the military efforts against "terrorists." they don't want drones flying, they don't want military forces to chase enemies across twit frontier, and they won't handle it themselves. If you look at what's coming out, the CIA had to set up parallel efforts to track militants because the ISIcouldnt or wouldn't donut themselves, and the CIA couldn't trust them to even know about it. Another article, this one from NPR and containing the view of a local that doesn't support the US. (I'll stop short of "anti-American) http://m.npr.org/story/133962907?url=/2011/02/22/133962907/americans-cia-ties-imperil-pakistan-cooperationwitty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #19 February 22, 2011 QuoteOf he went in with diplomatic immunity, shouldn't he still have it, regardless? Once the US notified Just found an article that the US is taking that stance, at least. http://m.timesofindia.com/...icleshow/7552383.cms A fine assumption to make. There are problems, however, and these problems are all the more obvious because of the handling of this issue from the start. The first problem is that simply calling someone a diplomat doesn't mean that the person is a diplomat. Everyone knows it. The second problem is caused by the handling. The technique works in a court of law but not in a court of public opinion - "throw everything against the wall and see what sticks." It is now KNOWN that the government asked the press not to say what the true facts are, meaning that the US government had something to hide and put forth falsities. Now they can't be trusted. Had the US simply taken the track of, "Here's what he is, but he still gets immunity" then the chances would be stronger. But the US did not - the government called him a "diplomat" when he wasn't a diplomat. "So you lied and called him a 'diplomat?' Now you say he isn't but is entitled to 'diplomatic immunity?'" What's next? Try to keep him off the gallows by calling him an enemy prisoner of war? This is why the dishonesty is such a fuck up. It ruins credibility down the line. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #20 February 22, 2011 (sorry about the incomplete post, I'm on my phone) From the first link in my previous post: QuoteSoon after, the US State Department wheeled out one of its "foremost experts in international law" to make the case that regardless of Davis' reported affiliation, he was entitled to diplomatic immunity because the US had clearly intimated to the Pakistani government that he is a member of the administrative and technical staff under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Sources also indicated that Pakistan had been told he is an intelligence operative working undercover and Islamabad was aware of it. "From that point, he enjoyed the status as a member of the staff of the mission. He enjoyed privileges and immunities against local criminal law, including inviolability of person, inviolability from arrest and detention, immunity from criminal jurisdiction. He has those privileges and immunities, and he continues to enjoy them," the expert, a senior administration official, told journalists in a conference call. We all know lawyers can take any simple sentence and argue that it means three distinct and opposing ideas. That not what interests me. The whole point is he went in with DI. He was announced to the Pakis. He expected DI. The Pakis knew who he was and could keep tabs on him. That's why black hat no-cover spooks don't go in as part of the embassy staff. Taking those protections makes them easier to track. If the US sends him in and tells the Pakis they expect DI, and the Pakis don't reject him, how do they get to up and decide that nah, they're not going to give it to him based on what he did. The entire concept of DI is to prevent that. He came in with DI. You dint like it, tag him persona non grata and expel him. The Pakis are as wrong as the US here. The US just looks bad for trying to hide that he was working with, for, or as a spook.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #21 February 22, 2011 QuoteUS had clearly intimated Do you see the problem with the bolded words when used together? This is defense attorney politician spin to a tee. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #22 February 23, 2011 QuoteQuoteUS had clearly intimated Do you see the problem with the bolded words when used together? This is defense attorney politician spin to a tee. I see just one more case of our goobermint trying to sneak a high-hard one past us.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #23 February 23, 2011 Oh I completely agree that he sounds like snakily little defense liar. But, as inonxe heard abjudge quip after too many gin and tonics, "Just because he's a greasy little amoral jerk of a defense liar, that doesn't mean he's wrong." Yes, the Feds look like jackasses, and the Pakis are acting like opportunistic douche bags, but that doesn't answer the question of whether or not he had DI. I don't know the Vienna Conventions that well. If a person is sent into a country under the umbrella of DI, does the foreign country get to claim it doesn't apply? (short of a home country waiving DI)witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #24 February 23, 2011 QuoteOh I completely agree that he sounds like snakily little defense liar. But, as inonxe heard abjudge quip after too many gin and tonics, "Just because he's a greasy little amoral jerk of a defense liar, that doesn't mean he's wrong." Yes, the Feds look like jackasses, and the Pakis are acting like opportunistic douche bags, but that doesn't answer the question of whether or not he had DI. I don't know the Vienna Conventions that well. If a person is sent into a country under the umbrella of DI, does the foreign country get to claim it doesn't apply? (short of a home country waiving DI) To the best of my knowledge, no. DI is immunity. The host country can PNG them and kick them out, or refuse to allow them to enter, but once they are in and credentialed, they have it. Anybody else remember the Russian (Or maybe Soviet but I think it was after that) diplomat who killed the girl while driving drunk? He had DI and was quite possibly going to simply go home until the home country waived it because of all the publicity. There have been others, some involving drug smuggling IIRC, but I don't remember the specifics of any at the moment."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #25 February 23, 2011 The list of foreign diplomats doing some seriously fucked up shit in and around New York and Washington and getting way with it due to DI is EXCEEDINGLY long Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
