• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US Man Shot Pakistan Pair "In Cold Blood"

Andalublue

Andalublue

Hello again!
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
27,101
Reaction score
12,359
Location
Granada, España
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
US Man Shot Pakistan Pair "In Cold Blood"

I read about this a few days ago, but then, reading this story something didn't sound kosher. It's this bit...

It is not clear what Mr Davis's role in Lahore was - American officials in the capital Islamabad have said only that he was an US embassy employee who was part of the "administrative and technical staff".

The Associated Press news agency says Pentagon records show that Mr Davis is a former Special Forces soldier who left the army in 2003 after 10 years of service.
Click to expand...

So, reading between the lines, he was a spy, right? Or wrong? Can anyone else decipher the coded language in this story?
 
Andalublue said:
US Man Shot Pakistan Pair "In Cold Blood"

I read about this a few days ago, but then, reading this story something didn't sound kosher. It's this bit...



So, reading between the lines, he was a spy, right? Or wrong? Can anyone else decipher the coded language in this story?
Click to expand...

I remember hearing about this. Apparently yes he was a spy and he was packing a lot of heat because roads aren't safe in Pakistan.
 
Andalublue said:
US Man Shot Pakistan Pair "In Cold Blood"

I read about this a few days ago, but then, reading this story something didn't sound kosher. It's this bit...

So, reading between the lines, he was a spy, right? Or wrong? Can anyone else decipher the coded language in this story?
Click to expand...

From the link:

It is not clear what Mr Davis's role in Lahore was - American officials in the capital Islamabad have said only that he was an US embassy employee who was part of the "administrative and technical staff".
Click to expand...

I don't understand why you would believe he's a spy....? Just because he is a former Special Forces soldier doesn't speak to his being a spy. Personally, I think it would be very unusual for the United States to employ someone in their embassy who was a spy. I'm just guessing that if that were the case, we'd be violating some agreements that embassy staff specifically not be engaged in espionage.

Here's what I'm looking for:

The Vienna Convention, specifically under Art. 41 requires that foreign Embassies, “respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State and not interfere in the internal affairs of the receiving State.”
Click to expand...
US Embassy in Lebanon: An Israeli espionage network | Rehmat's World
 
Last edited:
MaggieD said:
I don't understand why you would believe he's a spy....? Just because he is a former Special Forces soldier doesn't speak to his being a spy. Personally, I think it would be very unusual for the United States to employ someone in their embassy who was a spy. I'm just guessing that if that were the case, we'd be violating some agreements that embassy staff specifically not be engaged in espionage.
Click to expand...

Well, I guessed he might be a spy because the embassy failed to explain what he actually did do. It's a bit naive to doubt that embassies (of whatever nation) will have employees whose main occupation is to gather information and perhaps involve themselves in undercover, perhaps seditious, activities. I'm not saying this guy is just such an employee, that's why I started the thread, to ask whether others believed this might be the case.
 
Such a typical title to a BBC article. Instead of using any semblance of ethical journalistic standards, they attempt to influence point of view. Also typical, I'm sure, is the way British public will gobble it up without a clue as to how they are being influenced.

The way the title SHOULD have read if the BBC had any journalistic ethics would be "U.S. Man shot Pakistani Pair". By adding "In cold blood", the BBC is attempting to prejudice its readers towards views sympathetic to the two armed Pakistanis.
 
Andalublue said:
Well, I guessed he might be a spy because the embassy failed to explain what he actually did do. It's a bit naive to doubt that embassies (of whatever nation) will have employees whose main occupation is to gather information and perhaps involve themselves in undercover, perhaps seditious, activities. I'm not saying this guy is just such an employee, that's why I started the thread, to ask whether others believed this might be the case.
Click to expand...

Well, after Googling, I think your suspicions are warranted:

EspionageMinor espionage activity, or gathering information of host countries is conducted in almost every embassy. A typical position for an intelligence officer is as second press attaché, visa attaché or other position with no clear responsibilities. In the United States, it is a policy of the Foreign Service not to confirm or deny the existence of intelligence personnel in U.S. embassies.
Click to expand...
Diplomatic immunity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good catch.
 
Gardener said:
Such a typical title to a BBC article. Instead of using any semblance of ethical journalistic standards, they attempt to influence point of view. Also typical, I'm sure, is the way British public will gobble it up without a clue as to how they are being influenced.

The way the title SHOULD have read if the BBC had any journalistic ethics would be "U.S. Man shot Pakistani Pair". By adding "In cold blood", the BBC is attempting to prejudice its readers towards views sympathetic to the two armed Pakistanis.
Click to expand...

Do you have proof he wasn't one of the Lizard People?
 
Gardener said:
Such a typical title to a BBC article. Instead of using any semblance of ethical journalistic standards, they attempt to influence point of view. Also typical, I'm sure, is the way British public will gobble it up without a clue as to how they are being influenced.

The way the title SHOULD have read if the BBC had any journalistic ethics would be "U.S. Man shot Pakistani Pair". By adding "In cold blood", the BBC is attempting to prejudice its readers towards views sympathetic to the two armed Pakistanis.
Click to expand...

How predictable! Gardener, have you even read the article? It was given the headline because the "in cold blood" claim was the subject. It was not reporting the shooting. It had done that days previously with this article...
US Official Kills Two Pakistanis In Lahore
The raison d'etre of this article is the claim that it was not a case of self-defence. As you read it, of course, it becomes yet another opportunity to demonstrate your anti-British xenophobia.
 
Andalublue said:
How predictable! Gardener, have you even read the article? It was given the headline because the "in cold blood" claim was the subject. It was not reporting the shooting. It had done that days previously with this article...
US Official Kills Two Pakistanis In Lahore
The raison d'etre of this article is the claim that it was not a case of self-defence. As you read it, of course, it becomes yet another opportunity to demonstrate your anti-British xenophobia.
Click to expand...

I did read the article. Have you ever taken any classes in Journalism?


If you had, you would realize that the words "in cold blood" are so incredibly loaded with prejudice that they should never appear in an undcredited headline like that. Instead, the headline should have been stated in terms of the Pakistani official questioning the account of the shooting.

I'm sure it is easier for you to attack me here rather than think about the implications of that headline, but as far as "predictable" is concerned, you might want to check your own attitudes regarding the way you attack me for my "anti-British Xenophobia" when my criticism was directed at the BBC.
 
Gardener said:
I did read the article. Have you ever taken any classes in Journalism?
Click to expand...
I have. I've edited newspapers too.

If you had, you would realize that the words "in cold blood" are so incredibly loaded with prejudice that they should never appear in an undcredited headline like that. Instead, the headline should have been stated in terms of the Pakistani official questioning the account of the shooting.
Click to expand...
Do you understand the use of quotation marks? They function to signal to the reader that the words within are the reported remarks of a third party. In this case, those quoted words were stated in terms of the Pakistani official questioning the account of the shooting.

I'm sure it is easier for you to attack me here rather than think about the implications of that headline, but as far as "predictable" is concerned, you might want to check your own attitudes regarding the way you attack me for my "anti-British Xenophobia" when my criticism was directed at the BBC.
Click to expand...

At the British Broadcasting Corporation.
 
Andalublue said:
I have. I've edited newspapers too.
Click to expand...

Actual newspapers, or leftist rags intent on politicizing?

Andalublue said:
Do you understand the use of quotation marks? They function to signal to the reader that the words within are the reported remarks of a third party. In this case, those quoted words were stated in terms of the Pakistani official questioning the account of the shooting.
Click to expand...

They were stated in the headline devoid of context. As such, they were retained to influence point of view. Like I said, the ethical way to handle the headline would be to list it in terms of the Pakistani official questioning the account of the shooting, and then quote him directly in the body of the article.


Andalublue said:
At the British Broadcasting Corporation.
Click to expand...

and at that time when you quote the Albanian Brodcasting Corporation or the Bhutanese Broadcasting Corporation with similarly prejudicial headlines, I will criticize them, too.
 
Gardener said:
Actual newspapers, or leftist rags intent on politicizing?



They were stated in the headline devoid of context. As such, they were retained to influence point of view. Like I said, the ethical way to handle the headline would be to list it in terms of the Pakistani official questioning the account of the shooting, and then quote him directly in the body of the article.
Click to expand...
This makes sense. Especially since a quick glance at the headlines is all the news some people get in a day, which is probably what this source is counting on.
 
:lol: Gardener, you do realise all newspapers sensationalise the headlines to grab peoples attention, right?
 
If Mr. Davis had diplomtic immunity, the proper course of action by Pakistan would be to expel him or to ask the U.S. to waive his immunity (very unlikely to be agreed by the U.S.).
 
There was a time when no allied power would deny the diplomatic status of American spies. Times have changed.
 
The earliest reports were that the embassy was unsure of his status. As I recall, he's not even a proper spy, but a "contractor"
 
Albert Di Salvo said:
Then why is Obama going all out to get the guy released?
Click to expand...

I haven't read that. It appears from the article in the OP that the US is NOT pushing hard for his release.

The Pentagon appears uncertain of the guy's status and the Embassy has made no mention of diplomatic immunity. This is why I started the thread; it's all very odd. One would have expected one of the following to occur:

  • If he's a bona fide member of the embassy staff, his diplomatic immunity would be claimed swiftly and loudly. He'd be back home by now.
  • If he is a security contractor, his diplomatic status might not be obvious, but surely the company for whom he was working (under a State or Defence Department contract) would have claimed him and would be making representations on his behalf.
  • If he is there completely unofficially, why is the embassy doing anything other than ensuring he has a local lawyer and keeping an eye on due process?

This is why this case is strange, no doubt.
 
Andalublue said:
I haven't read that. It appears from the article in the OP that the US is NOT pushing hard for his release.

The Pentagon appears uncertain of the guy's status and the Embassy has made no mention of diplomatic immunity. This is why I started the thread; it's all very odd. One would have expected one of the following to occur:

  • If he's a bona fide member of the embassy staff, his diplomatic immunity would be claimed swiftly and loudly. He'd be back home by now.
  • If he is a security contractor, his diplomatic status might not be obvious, but surely the company for whom he was working (under a State or Defence Department contract) would have claimed him and would be making representations on his behalf.
  • If he is there completely unofficially, why is the embassy doing anything other than ensuring he has a local lawyer and keeping an eye on due process?

This is why this case is strange, no doubt.
Click to expand...

I heard in passing that the US is now holding up all development aid to Pakistan until the fellow in question is released. This looks like a full court press to me. Please correct me if I am mistaken.
 
Albert Di Salvo said:
I heard in passing that the US is now holding up all development aid to Pakistan until the fellow in question is released. This looks like a full court press to me. Please correct me if I am mistaken.
Click to expand...

Well, I certainly haven't read that anywhere. Please link to where you read or heard this. That would be interesting.
 
Andalublue said:
US Man Shot Pakistan Pair "In Cold Blood"

I read about this a few days ago, but then, reading this story something didn't sound kosher. It's this bit...



So, reading between the lines, he was a spy, right? Or wrong? Can anyone else decipher the coded language in this story?
Click to expand...




his storyline reads CIA, I have a few friends who went that route.
 
Andalublue said:
Ah! That's what I guessed, but frankly I wouldn't know. If so, why can't he claim diplomatic immunity?
Click to expand...



I think "murder" if that's what it is, is not covered under immunity. If he is cia, this story will quickly just disapate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom