• 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!

Lawyer: Pakistan releases CIA contractor after 'blood money' paid

D

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,862
Reaction score
10,300
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From MSNBC:

An American CIA contractor facing murder charges in Pakistan has been released after the U.S. paid more than $2 million in "blood money" to the relatives of the victims, a lawyer for the families said Wednesday...

Lawyer Raja Irshad said 19 relatives appeared in court Wednesday to accept payments totaling $2.34 million. He said each told the court "they were ready to accept the blood money deal without pressure and would have no objection if the court acquitted Raymond Davis."
Click to expand...

'Blood money': CIA contractor freed after payment - World news - South and Central Asia - Pakistan - msnbc.com

IMO, this news report raises troubling issues:

1. Did the U.S. actually pay a ransom to secure Mr. Davis' release. In the story, the U.S. denies a quid-pro-quo arrangement.

2. If the U.S. paid a ransom, no matter how it was packaged, did that indicate that Mr. Davis had actually lacked diplomatic immunity. That immunity was asserted but to the date of his release had not been demonstrated.

3. What precedents would be established if a ransom had been paid and has the U.S. undermined its own credibility when others are inclined to pay ransom e.g., to the Somali pirates, etc.?
 
donsutherland1 said:
From MSNBC:

'Blood money': CIA contractor freed after payment - World news - South and Central Asia - Pakistan - msnbc.com

IMO, this news report raises troubling issues:

1. Did the U.S. actually pay a ransom to secure Mr. Davis' release. In the story, the U.S. denies a quid-pro-quo arrangement.

2. If the U.S. paid a ransom, no matter how it was packaged, did that indicate that Mr. Davis had actually lacked diplomatic immunity. That immunity was asserted but to the date of his release had not been demonstrated.

3. What precedents would be established if a ransom had been paid and has the U.S. undermined its own credibility when others are inclined to pay ransom e.g., to the Somali pirates, etc.?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure it's necessarily accurate to call it a "ransom" since he was being held by the recognized government that is nominally our ally, and since they at least had an actual reason to hold him (no one disputes that he killed two Pakistanis, but he claims it was in self-defense). It certainly indicates extreme corruption though. If the charges were completely fabricated or if the government had a pattern of doing this, that would be a different matter.

I would agree that he isn't entitled to diplomatic immunity based on what is publicly known about this case. The government of Pakistan never accepted his diplomatic credentials to the best of my knowledge.
 
Last edited:
Typical third world country antics, extort whenever possible. Unfortunately we will kiss Paki butt for as long as we are in Afghanistan.
There should never be any negotiation with the Somali pirates, they should be blown out of the water on sight and none left alive for trial.
 
Kandahar said:
I'm not sure it's necessarily accurate to call it a "ransom" since he was being held by the recognized government that is nominally our ally, and since they at least had an actual reason to hold him (no one disputes that he killed two Pakistanis, but he claims it was in self-defense). It certainly indicates extreme corruption though. If the charges were completely fabricated or if the government had a pattern of doing this, that would be a different matter.

I would agree that he isn't entitled to diplomatic immunity based on what is publicly known about this case. The government of Pakistan never accepted his diplomatic credentials to the best of my knowledge.
Click to expand...

The payment of blood money is quite common in many societies. The US and Pakistan must be quite relieved that such a system exists, because it's just got them both out of quite a sticky situation.

Blood money (term) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Andalublue said:
The payment of blood money is quite common in many societies. The US and Pakistan must be quite relieved that such a system exists, because it's just got them both out of quite a sticky situation.
Click to expand...

I agree that it was probably the only solution that was acceptable to both parties. It seems to have pissed off the people of Pakistan quite a bit, as there has been rioting in front of the US consulate today.
 
Kandahar said:
I agree that it was probably the only solution that was acceptable to both parties. It seems to have pissed off the people of Pakistan quite a bit, as there has been rioting in front of the US consulate today.
Click to expand...

I'm sure it has, but that's all whipped-up, anti-US political bluster. It would happen wherever a case like this occurred. I think it would happen in a Western country too. Look at the outrage at the release of Al-Megrahi.
 
A different US president would not have stood for this.

This is beyond disgusting.
 
Andalublue said:
What would a different US president have done?
Click to expand...

Put the appropriate pressure on Pakistan to release the agent, no strings attached.

Obama is a weak little boy. He does not command respect or fear from other nations. He is a boy wearing a man's suit, and events like this are the result.
 
Ed Gein said:
Put the appropriate pressure on Pakistan to release the agent, no strings attached.

Obama is a weak little boy. He does not command respect or fear from other nations. He is a boy wearing a man's suit, and events like this are the result.
Click to expand...

Utterly ridiculous partisan speculation.
 
Ed Gein said:
Put the appropriate pressure on Pakistan to release the agent, no strings attached.
Click to expand...

What kind of "appropriate pressure" are you talking about? You didn't actually explain what a different US president would have done, you just repeated the same thing again.
 
The simple fix here is to just subtract $2.34 million from the next Foreign Aid package we send to Pakistan and don't list it or bring it up just do it and call it even.
 
You heard it here first! I told y'all that guy was more important than the government was letting on... my guess was CIA... and that we'd have to pay big money to get him back.

Damn, I'm good! :mrgreen:
 
The money was paid because the guy apparently killed some people over there. The money was compensation to the victims families.
 
donsutherland1 said:
From MSNBC:



'Blood money': CIA contractor freed after payment - World news - South and Central Asia - Pakistan - msnbc.com

IMO, this news report raises troubling issues:

1. Did the U.S. actually pay a ransom to secure Mr. Davis' release. In the story, the U.S. denies a quid-pro-quo arrangement.

2. If the U.S. paid a ransom, no matter how it was packaged, did that indicate that Mr. Davis had actually lacked diplomatic immunity. That immunity was asserted but to the date of his release had not been demonstrated.

3. What precedents would be established if a ransom had been paid and has the U.S. undermined its own credibility when others are inclined to pay ransom e.g., to the Somali pirates, etc.?
Click to expand...

Paying for Davis's release doesn't necessarily indicate that he didn't have diplomatic immunity.
 
Andalublue said:
What would a different US president have done?
Click to expand...

The Paks wouldn't have pulled this **** with a different kind of president than the one we currently have.
 
Ed Gein said:
A different US president would not have stood for this.
This is beyond disgusting.
Click to expand...
Which different one?
apdst said:
The Paks wouldn't have pulled this **** with a different kind of president than the one we currently have.
Click to expand...
So if I were to find even a single example of families being offered compensation for deaths happening under a different president, you would concede that you're wrong?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom