He drew a gun, aimed it, pulled the trigger and ended up killing two people. That's about as deliberate as it gets. Now, whether he was justified in killing them is another issue, and again that is something that should be heard in a court of law (unless diplomatic immunity applies).
Point being, he DOES have diplomatic immunity. Which means he isn't subject to the Pakistani court. Period. End of.
Getting behind the wheel of a car when you are so drunk you can barely walk and driving through an urban area killing people not in a different category. I think I know why you are categorizing them differently, but regardless... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yvonne_Fletcher
If he did in fact register with the Pakistani Foreign Office when he entered the country as the State Department claims, then yes, he does.
OK, I've had a quick look at Vienna, and the following articles drew my attention: Article 1(e): Article 29: Article 31 Article 38 I think Article 38 is what they will be arguing about.
I'd thought this, too. I doubt the Government were thinking along these lines, but the population probably are. (The Government allegedly had a hand in her incarceration.) The people probably either want the return of Aafia Siddiqui, or revenge for her incarceration.
I think the Pakistani government is stuck between a rock and a hard place. They either have two options. One is send Davis back to the US, which they already would have done if there was no public knowledge of the situation, and risk an outright rebellion. Two, say FU to the US, save the country from massive unrest, and risk billions of US dollars in aid. I don't think Pakistan's administration sees this situation as anything positive whatsoever.
Could they be any worse? Both sides are making nice in public, but the fact of the matter is that Pakistan's intelligence agency is an active supporter of the Taliban and we know it and they know that we know it. It's all a facade.
There isn't a positive outcome for them because their people are ********ing stupid and cannot comprehend that international/diplomatic law actually, you know, matters. In the eyes of the average Pakistani: white Christian shot brown Muslims. White Christian must die. Which is fine, except that they're willing to go nuts when their retarded demands aren't met. Which sucks, but that isn't the US's problem. Pakistan's inability to keep their people from going apeshit over this is their own problem.
They could easily be worse. What is at stake for Pakistan? Billions of a dollars. BILLIONS What is at stake for the US? Soon to be the fifth largest nuclear arsenal in the world in one of the most unstable countries in the world. Personally, I'd love to cut a deal with the Taliban and say, you know what, if the Afghans want to live in the 12th century, go right ahead. Just remember that if anybody tries to mess with us again we will bomb you into the 4th century. Pakistan though, terrifies me.
You, like many Americans, unfortunately, being brainwashed by our media here. Need some true understanding on Pakistan.
Me too. I'm just not sure how us giving billions of dollars to them does anything vis-a-vis securing that nuclear arsenal. Our only upside is that they can't fire their nukes at us directly.
Well only part of the billions of dollars goes to securing their nuclear arsenal. A good chunk of it goes into supporting/fighting the Taliban. I'm not sure there is a particularly easy solution to this one.
Pakistan 101 OK, try to do some background here. 1. Pakistan's arch enemy is India. Mean reason is about Kashmir. No resolution in Kashmir, then no resolution in Paki-India conflict. 2. Pakistan has a geographical disadvantage in confronting with India -- lack of depth. So Pakistan considers Afghan as their depth. 3. That is why Southern Afghans, aka. Pushtuns, became Pakistan's strategic partner. And that is why Pakistan is behind Taliban. 4. So for any American success in Afghan, you have to make sure you reach your goals without undermining Pakistan's national interest. 5. Unless US can make a clear line between Taliban and AQ, then any military actions to weaken Pushtuns, will help Northern Afghans, aka. Tajiks, etc. And that is weaken Pakistan's influence and help India and Iran influence. 6. But if US's goal in Afghan is NOT about AQ, but a BIGGER pie about Central Asia, about checking Russia and China? 7. US money to Pakistan is buying road access. Otherwise, military will run out supply very soon.
Other than number 6, which I don't understand, I don't disagree with you, but I also don't understand where you are going with it.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/02/23/2081799/pakistans-intelligence-ready-to.html "Pakistan intelligence had no idea who Davis was or what he was doing when he was arrested ... The ISI official told the AP that Davis had contacts in the tribal regions and knew both the men he shot. He said the ISI is investigating the possibility that the encounter on the streets of Lahore stemmed from a meeting or from threats to Davis. U.S. officials deny Davis had prior contact with the men before the incident" "The ISI official said his agency knows and works with "the bona fide CIA people in Pakistan" but is upset that the CIA would send others over behind its back. For now, he said, his agency is not talking with the CIA at any level, including the most senior."
I don't believe anything ANYBODY is saying on either side. My rule of thumb? The CIA and ISI are lying through their teeth.
Central Asia is the main area that Big Chess Game played out. Energy wise, it is oil/gas center after Mid East. It is also the center point for Euro-Asia continent. If you can control here, you basically have front base to check on Russia, China and India (maybe in future plan). If there is a new silk route being rebuilt between Europe and Asia, then it became the game changer. No one has to go through Maraca, Suiz, etc. Then mighty navy is no longer a requirement. Currently there are two choke points.
Christian cabinet minister assassinated: http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/02/pakistan.minister.shot/index.html?hpt=Sbin "I am ready to sacrifice my life for the principled stand I have taken because the people of Pakistan are being victimized under the pretense of blasphemy law."
Davis now has a wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Allen_Davis Christopher Hitchens opines: http://www.slate.com/id/2286722/